Whether something is a ‘cost’ or a ‘benefit’ is itself entirely subjective.
Vichy
Karma: 87
I reject the coherence of neoclassical modeling. I am a definite Misesian in this vein. Predictability and meaningless non-economic situations have nothing to do with the real economy, and have no impact on helping us to understand the real economy (except as counter-factuals, to isolate certain elements, but then they are counter-factuals and ONLY counter-factuals).
I can’t stand the stuff I see in the fashion magazines, it’s hideous and absurd looking. Fashion models look like someone without depth perception or color vision dressed them. All the stuff I wear tends to be contrasting primary colors (black, red, blue, white) with straight lines of design and minimal labeling. As a consequence, half of my clothes are middle-priced men’s clothes.
‘Perfect competition’ is utter nonsense. Not only is it impossible, there is also nothing intrinsically desireable about it.
And Pareto-Superior conditions are also nonsense. There is no non-arbitrary way to compare utilities of separate actors. What makes someone ‘better’ or ‘worse’ off is entirely subjective, and not at all subject to arithmetic comparison or external validation/invalidation.
There’s no point in power if you don’t exploit it for personal benefit. Cops are annoying, but they don’t bother me on some sort of existential level.
I find it virtually impossible to be offended by anything. The very concept of ‘being offended’ seems to indicate something of an ego-blow, or a status-puncture.
I would say it basically comes down to the fact that abstract rationality is slow and requires lots of processing power. For the same reasons we can usually only mentally afford to employ a certain limited set of fairly abstracted terms, and can only follow the implications of this to a limited degree. If we were all Kryptonians it would probably be pretty functionally rational to stay in ‘far mode’ all the time, but as the squishy, dumb bugs we are a lot of our functional capacity derives from various habitual and patterned behaviour. Far mode mostly seems to serve as a general regulator for some general patterns, perhaps in order to improve intra-plan cohesion. The whole cognitive consciousness part of this may simply be a side-effect of it being kind of overlayed over the background pattern integration that constitutes our ordinary mental processes.
“Excluding people for reasons unrelated to these goals, such as susceptibility to social pressure, is suboptimal because potential gains scale with the number of people you interact with.” It’s quite the other way around—people who strongly conform to social pressure tend to be people who I will disagree with so much in theory and practice that I have no desire to attempt any sort of relationship. I find people who get ‘offended’, or care about ‘animal rights’, are far more likely to make me want to punch them than to contribute anything I have any interest in hearing.
“I don’t feel justified to demand that they do.” Justification is phantom. I just couldn’t give a damn what they like or not. Why should I automatically have sympathy for these primates just because they happen to be related to me? I don’t ‘demand’ anything of them, but I owe them nothing, either. I give them no more leave than I would a dog.
Well, I wouldn’t say that women can not wear clothes that men find attractive/unattractive, or otherwise interesting. But I know from conversations that many men consider a good majority of what women wear to be pointless and stupid looking. All the guys I know are practically offended by those baby-doll dress, or stuff like shoes with bows on them.
I have to agree. I mean, I like dressing up, but there is definite limit of like an hour which I will not go beyond. If an hour of work can’t make you look good, no amount of time will.
I’m residing in the northwest USA. Pretty much all of my friends are males. No, literally all of them.
It seems to me a lot of this has to be female-female signaling as proposed. Most men do not seem to care what I’m wearing, and would probably prefer it was ‘nothing’. I have NEVER had a guy bring up something I’m wearing unless it was clearly being used as an opening for chatting me up.
“What are you, a Randian?” Certainly not. I’m just amoral and not very keen on some of the typical elements of our primate tribalisms. On top of that, I think most people’s social ‘problems’ are self-inflicted.
“In my experience, most people aren’t’ ‘whiners’, though that might be subjective.” By ‘whiner’ I mean simply what I said above. It’s not someone else’s fault you get offended or otherwise react emotionally, that’s your deal. If you can do something about it, do so. If not—what of it? Obviously if the other person thought they had a reason to treat you differently they would, and if they don’t—well, there is no higher authority of values or norms.
“Rather, we’d like to have the best community we can, and it’s pretty well-established that we’re in favor of community norms that serve that end.” I’d just rather not deal with people who suffer from the sort of self-inflicted ‘problems’ outlined above, and do not sympathise with their ‘plight’.
Because it’s easy enough to ignore people who bore me, and there are a handful of you on here who are worth interacting with. What’s more, sometimes ‘normal’ people do produce something worth reading, I just wouldn’t want to share an apartment with them.
‘Suboptimal’ for what? There is no such thing as ‘general efficiency’, success and failure (and their degress) are meaningless without an actual framework of goals and preference. I simply do not enjoy socially interacting with people like that. I am aware that this includes most of the human race. I happen to find most of the human race useless beyond the buy-sell relationship.
Not at all, as this isn’t something specific to women. I think most people are ‘whiners’ who complain as though somebody owed them something. They do not. Not appreciation, not respect, not deference, not friendship, not the time of day. People who get ‘offended’ because someone didn’t say what THEY wanted, or because someone doesn’t care about their feelings just annoy me.
Well, I don’t very much care about those sorts of people. It’s not that I have any desire to aggravate them, but they’re usually useless to me as anything but vending machines.
Despite being female, I generally find I could not give a damn about alleged ‘social’ pressures on women, since people who get all weepy because everyone doesn’t treat them nice are (in my opinion) laughable, regardless of their sex.
“Comments and posts that casually objectify women or encourage the objectification of women. ” Human beings ARE objects. All of them. Whatever an ‘autonomous being is’, if it exists it is still an object in both the grammatical and ontological sense. I objectify everyone, and it seems absurd not to.
“If you need to use an example with a gender, there’s no reason to consider male the default—consider choosing randomly,” This just seems silly to me. A total waste of effort. I can’t imagine being bothered by the gender of hypothetical people, and especially not by casual use of words which are unisex anyways (such as ‘man’ for ‘human’).
“Sweeping generalizations about women” Most sweeping generalizations are flawed, but the amount of stupid things people believe about women is far less ridiculous than the stuff they believe about people they have literally no experience with—such as the Japanese, or Mormons.
“Fawning admiration of pickup artists who attain their fame by the systematic manipulation of women.” ‘Manipulation’? I though these were ‘autonomous’ beings? People who can’t look after their own social well-being get what coming to them.
“Attention to the privileges of masculinity and attempts to reduce that disparity.” The law favors women just as often as it doesn’t, especially in various legal disputes. As far as the ‘privileges’ of men—insofar as they aren’t legally enforced, I couldn’t give a damn. No one owes you anything.
* we recognize that the optimal long-term strategy can differ greatly from the optimal one-shot analysis, and * we have preferences about some anticipated world-states rather than just anticipated mind-states.In response to this I say there is nothing about subjectivist satisfaction which prevents taking these (or anything else) into consideration. Further, I do not mean this in a utility-function sense, but rather ‘actual wants derived from valuation forecasts which result in intentionality’.
The point isn’t whether robots (or people) could be affected by cardinal magnitudes. The point is that only the valuation which causes action in the subjective present (Bergsonian present) actually motivates people. How they come to have that value might be predictable by direct cardinal ratios (indeed, if you’re a mental determinist and materialist this is true of humans). The point is that this psychological or physiological fact is the origin of a particular motivation. Teleological entities, however, only feel and act right now, and only on their most highly ranked values—however those values came to be most highly ranked. And there is no assessable ‘ratio’ of satisfaction gained or loss, only expectations of better or worse.
It’s really fascinating to me how someone with a list of Asperger’s symptoms can so readily describe a lot of elements in my psychological life.
I have noticed for a long time that I tend to think about all sorts of things other people don’t, and that I am just totally confused about other people’s emotional responses.