Do you have an operational definition of “intrinsic preferences”?
Let me try. I believe that if copies of a person (as determined by their genotype*) would be raised in different cultures and environments, their revealed preferences would mainly be clustered around a single point, with some shifts determined by what desires society showed them as acceptable/tractable and what as unfashionable. Given proper diversity of surrounding cultures list, I’d say the cluster median indicates person’s intrinsic preferences.
*it also seems intuitively right to discount traits that were [IVF?]optimized for, if any, as an outside influence; though, I have no strong opinion on this.
I’d probably call that something like “genetic values” rather than “intrinsic preferences”.
Twin studies and the like complicate the belief that genetic values are “clustered around a single point”. According to Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, religiosity is mostly genetically determined, but choice of religion is mostly socially determined. If you have a 2d map of religious views, then the genotype-derived values would be more of a river than a point.
Maybe we try to save this and say that someone with a pro-religiosity genotype has a pro-religiosity genetic value. But if they are raised in a Christian culture, they probably end up in favor of Christian religiosity and against Islamic religiosity. Given the option of taking a sci-fi pill that made them more consistently religious but changed their religion to Islam, they would decline. Is their opposition to Islamic religiosity an example of “preference inversion” then?
Let me try. I believe that if copies of a person (as determined by their genotype*) would be raised in different cultures and environments, their revealed preferences would mainly be clustered around a single point, with some shifts determined by what desires society showed them as acceptable/tractable and what as unfashionable. Given proper diversity of surrounding cultures list, I’d say the cluster median indicates person’s intrinsic preferences.
*it also seems intuitively right to discount traits that were [IVF?]optimized for, if any, as an outside influence; though, I have no strong opinion on this.
I’d probably call that something like “genetic values” rather than “intrinsic preferences”.
Twin studies and the like complicate the belief that genetic values are “clustered around a single point”. According to Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, religiosity is mostly genetically determined, but choice of religion is mostly socially determined. If you have a 2d map of religious views, then the genotype-derived values would be more of a river than a point.
Maybe we try to save this and say that someone with a pro-religiosity genotype has a pro-religiosity genetic value. But if they are raised in a Christian culture, they probably end up in favor of Christian religiosity and against Islamic religiosity. Given the option of taking a sci-fi pill that made them more consistently religious but changed their religion to Islam, they would decline. Is their opposition to Islamic religiosity an example of “preference inversion” then?