The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
EdithKeeler
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by EdithKeeler » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:29 am

Edith, your last post is what I mean when I say that making a world that confirms with my values would lead to unhappiness for most folks. I disagree with almost everything you said. But please don't take that the wrong way. I very much enjoy your posts. And I will know I have it right, when I set things up in a way that would make both you and I happier than any existing alternative.
Fair enough. I look forward to reading about it!

Campitor
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Campitor » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:14 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:11 am

@Campitor: Is there no part of you that would maybe like to be in a Rihanna video?
Nope. What prompted this question?

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by BRUTE » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:47 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:11 am
IOW, the question I would ask is do you believe that the best possible advocate for any child is their parent or parents
no.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by BRUTE » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:49 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:11 am
@Riggerjack: What level of appropriate technology do you envision for your gated community? Will there be anybody on site with the capability to design the next generation of fiber-optics? How much wampum will you pay them for providing this service to the community?
brute did not get the impression that Riggerjack's community would be an economic oasis. why would they not simply buy the fiber-optics?

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4031
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:10 am

brute did not get the impression that Riggerjack's community would be an economic oasis. why would they not simply buy the fiber-optics?
Silly me, I'm more concerned that I don't create a platform to launch some form of tyranny, than whether they could bootstrap better tech.
Sorry. Not connecting my dots very well. Riggerjack is anti-meritocracy. The tech world was suggested as possibly being best example of meritocracy. I was thinking about my own experience teaching young students very basic reading skills while I am also currently learning some fairly basic tech skills, with both learning experiences being facilitated through the use of technology.

So, the point I was trying to make is that whatever rules existed within the boundaries of Riggerjack's community, if that community engaged in free trade at its borders in order to procure advanced technology, the individual in the world outside of this community's boundaries who had to master coursework in the field of technology at a level likely equal to at least 1000 hours of study beyond my current level, would still likely earn a high wage commensurate with achieving this level of specialization. Jacob mentioned a criteria based on those who can learn the calculus vs. those who can't. Since I am one of the people who can learn the calculus, if I do not suffer from discrimination due to gender and/or age, then according to my MOOC provider, I can make at least 2.5 X more $$/hr. doing Data Science than tutoring children in basic reading skills. Thus, it must be the case that society would benefit more from my work as Data Scientist than my work as Reading Tutor, right?

@Campitor: I don't like it when people throw words like "psychopath" around freely. I was thinking about one of the 7th grade boys I tutor, and how I saw him at a distance in the hallway, laughing with some friends, with a very cute girl hanging on his arm, and how difficult it is to motivate him to focus on his studies under the threat of some dire future. He's not a psychopath, but he will not co-operate with the middle-aged white male tutor who persists in correcting his grammar, because "These kids must learn the Midwestern model of speech." Thereby putting emphasis on something as arbitrary as the 100 billion acronyms of the tech world I am currently short-term memorizing, rather than the much more complex, deep benefit of the ability to fluently interpret written symbols in any language or grammar.

Anyways, I am depressed because my very good little 10 year old student was behaving badly yesterday. The reason being that his mother placed his 9 year old brother in "juvie." Yup, you read right. On your 9th birthday in Detroit, you can be placed in a juvenile detention facility with other youth up to the age of 20. My student asked me "Mizz J, do you have feelings?" I replied "What do you mean?" . "Well, I don't have any feelings, but my brother he do. Like when my momma is grumpy, I just don't care and give her a hug, but my brother be all like, how you say, having a tantrum 'cause he have feelings."

EdithKeeler
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by EdithKeeler » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:58 am

Anyways, I am depressed because my very good little 10 year old student was behaving badly yesterday. The reason being that his mother placed his 9 year old brother in "juvie."
Man.... that’s sad. And a good reminder that we can sit here and do armchair economic and social theory and play “if I ran the world, i’d...” but the reality is real people are affected every single moment by the policies in place, the people we elect, the decisions (often largely uninformed) we make when we go to the polls.

Yesterday I sent an insurance form to a young lady in rural Mississippi. I could tell from the three phone calls I got that she really has no idea what it’s for and I suspect she can’t read it. Another kid I talked to—age 27, so not a kid—didn’t understand the difference between his car registration and his payment book for his car.

I encounter people almost every day who have issues of one sort or another, and I think as our society gets ever more complex, they just get further left behind. I really don’t know what the answer is, but it makes me uncomfortable when the response tends to be “just leave them to their own devices.” Or to paraphrase MLK, you can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don’t have bootstraps. Sometimes those “bootstraps” are seemingly simple things we take for granted like a decent reading level.

So sorry for your student, and her brother, and sorry for others out there.

ffj
Posts: 1852
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by ffj » Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:53 am

@Edith

"but the reality is real people are affected every single moment by the policies in place, the people we elect, the decisions (often largely uninformed) we make when we go to the polls."

Absolutely true. The question for me though is which the causal factor, dumb people voting in policies and politicians, or corrupt policies and politicians creating dumb people? Sort of like the question "does crime create poverty or does poverty create crime?"

We can debate the chicken and egg question forever but I think we could all agree the cycle needs to stop feeding poor behaviors. The 9 year old in juvie was placed there by his mother more than likely, we just can't focus solely on the fact that the state has a facility for 9 year olds. Who's feeding the system and more importantly why? Did the state create the conditions that resulted in the placement of this kid? I'm guessing not but I don't know. And to contrast, would the removal of the juvie program create a better life for this kid? Again, I'm guessing not because obviously the mother (where's the father?) either can't handle him or wants someone else to take care of him. All of this sounds judgmental as hell but I think it's been clearly documented the effects of poor parenting and/or non-existent fathers.

I tend to focus on individual behaviors and responsibilities because they have the largest and more immediate effect. If I thought going after policies would have a greater effect I would promote that instead.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by BRUTE » Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:40 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:10 am
his mother placed his 9 year old brother in "juvie." Yup, you read right. On your 9th birthday in Detroit, you can be placed in a juvenile detention facility with other youth up to the age of 20
that's fucked up. the libertarian answer is, of course, to allow child labor. thus a 9 year old kid whose mother wants to put him into juvie could at least attempt to work a paper route, or some other starter job/apprenticeship.

this is why brute believes the parents are not always the best judges of what a human child should do. neither is the state. no entity is always the best judge. more options and more freedoms allow individual humans (like this 9 year old human boy) to at least attempt to help themselves against this tyranny.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10429
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by jacob » Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:56 am

While more options are better for the rational human phenotype, most humans are not rational but rather "rationalizing".

There's a lot of research showing that more options tend to
  • Decrease happiness
  • Increase anxiety
  • Lead to analysis/paralysis
  • Prefer to follow rather than lead (e.g. rules and directions instead of accepting personal responsibility for all the choices)
  • Bias against upside in favor of avoiding downside.
In other words, people are not very rational with choices.

This is why some retirement plans are now opt-out instead of opt-in. The existence of choice combined with the complexity of thinking about financial planning means that most people "choose" to do nothing. Since being in the plan is rationally good, smart people decided to make the default choice the rational one because ordinary humans couldn't figure it out.

Part of the issue here is AGAIN the difference between the economic relations and the social relations and which are believe to be most important. A person's opinion on this matter can be determined by the left/right scale. I bet not a single person voting to the right would say that social relations are the most important. At least that has not been the case after 168 posts so far in this thread. It's very predictable what people are going to say based on their voting preferences. So at least people are consistent.

So for example, suppose that a typical human has a problem with something. Being human, there are two possible solutions: economic and social.

The human can exit the situation and try to find another situation. That's the strategy of changing the economical relation. Everybody on the right would say this is the best way.

However, other humans would try to fix the situation by complaining about it or convincing others in the hope that the social relations would change. That's the strategy of changing the social relations. Everybody on the left would say that this is the best way.

The fact that humans seem hardwired to fall on a spectrum here. Most people in a democracy seem to vote according to what benefits them personally w/o considering how the whole of society hangs together. There are a few exceptions to this general rule in which some people begin to realize that "just because it's good for me (and my neurotransmitter levels/rates), doesn't mean it's good for everybody".

Anyhoo .. I'm sure this argument will keep going forever. Just wanted to point out that psychologists and economists are beginning to know quite a bit about what actually makes humans tick.

Example: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/why-i ... g-out.html

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:17 pm

jacob wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:56 am
The fact that humans seem hardwired to fall on a spectrum here. Most people in a democracy seem to vote according to what benefits them personally w/o considering how the whole of society hangs together. There are a few exceptions to this general rule in which some people begin to realize that "just because it's good for me (and my neurotransmitter levels/rates), doesn't mean it's good for everybody".
I understand and I have seen you write about this before, but I have also read your problem with postmodernism. If difference of opinion can be justified by idiosyncratic brain chemistry, what grounds could there be for a definitive and authoritative answer to any question?

Taken to its logical extreme, one group can simply outbreed another and justify its moral code in that the group is the majority and is therefore right.

While what @7w5 describes is dreadful, if we are hyper attentive to every case, it leads to more bad than good. More social programs leads to more people who need social programs, and the aggregate suffering is multiplied. I would rather we try and colonize space and increase the size of the whole pie, rather than bicker over fair distribution of the current pie.

But you already knew I would say something like that, based on my previously established neurotransmitter rates and levels. :P

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10429
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by jacob » Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:02 pm

There's a great argument for being "reasonable" because reason is basically how the universe works.---And we do know quite a bit about that. Pomo, being invented and discussed in the ivory towers (really, only one of those towers) by tenured professors has the luxury of ignoring reality. However, the rest of us are better off working in accordance with reality than against it. My issue with pomo is that it ignores the observation that frameworks based on reason experientially work much better than frameworks that people invent out of thin air.

Learning how to reason is basically a work in progress. Therefore reason will be neither definite nor authoritative.

If you have a community of humans with diverse neurochemistry and knowing that 99.9% of humans don't like pain, it would better to make laws (using laws because humans like to follow laws because it requires less thinking) that ensure a minimum compromise than going for laws that make 51% happy but 49% unhappy. This follows form min-max theories from game-theory, so it's eminently reasonable, because reality. This is basically why it's better to have laws that respect/protect minorities even as persecuting them would make the majority happy. The reason is that you don't know which side you might find yourself on eventually ... therefore it's better to aim for a system that minimizes the maximum pain you can receive from any number of law systems [because you don't know which one you might suffer from] in case they work against you. Grokking that last sentence is crucial to understanding how the optimal system of laws follows from the minmax theorem.

(If you want a simple minmax problem, consider the death penalty. Set up the game theory matrix. Explain why you use that cost matrix.)

Of course, if one group outbreeds the other, then we would (by the laws of nature) have a more limited range of neurochemistry. Lets say humans started breeding for size and aggression. Then a better system would be one of chiefs and warriors in which what mattered morally was whether you could physically kill anyone you disagreed with. And people/everybody would agree with that because they all had the required brain chemistry to accept it.

However, again, the minmax theorem would lead to the correct ethics. In such a case, it would be my honor to be killed by someone who stole something from me as long as the thief is stronger than me(*).

Since that is not the case, we can't have that kind of system. But if everybody is the same, it's very easy to construct one-size-fits all. If not, it's a lot harder and might even be impossible. If thought making clothes for all the different kinds of human bodies was tough, it's so much harder to make laws that fit all kinds of human brains.

(*) This incidentally, has been the operating [ethics] system, in historical warrior communities. They died out when single-warrior combat skills lost out to "smarter" humans who knew how to organize. Humans who follow squad tactics beat strong individuals. Big reason why the Romans overran the known world.

Not respecting the minmax essentially means that people playing against it, that is, choosing by same other strategy will lose statistically against systems that do. In short, those societies will perform less well in terms of what they're trying to optimize than others. A democracy in which participants understand that the aim is to find the best minmax (vernacularly known as a "compromise") would work better than a democracy in which participants vote according to their own interests ... which again would work better than a democracy driven by single-issue voters.

I already know that single-issue voters will object to this last observation, but before doing that, please try to understand how minmax strats work first.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:08 pm

A hypothetical.

Let’s suppose Country A focuses its resources on a minimax for the lowest common denominator.

Neighboring Country B focuses its resources on stronger infrastructure, economy, and military.

Country A would be a nicer country to live in, or at least an easier country to live in. Studies are released that indicate the aggregate happiness quotient in Country A is higher. It is decided! Country A has the best form of government, as it attends to its least advantaged persons and tries to minimize the worst outcomes for all individuals. No one is left poor, homeless, or hungry. Even male virgins in the MGTOW movement are provided with beautiful women for sex, as the beautiful women decide that inequality of outcomes is unbearable.

Country B is denounced as unpleasant and indifferent to human rights. Not only are the MGTOW virgins left unrewarded, their knuckles are whipped at each mention of “equality” and “fairness.” The underprivileged from Country B longingly seek to emigrate to Country A, as they feel Country A must be better. Right up until Country B invades, conquers, and subjagates Country A. The best and brightest of Country A are killed, and its lowest common denominator is made subservient.

Another hypothetical.

An asteroid is hurtling towards the Earth, and is expected to destroy all life on the planet when it impacts in a few years.

The leaders of Country A convene. Life is fleeting, and so all private property is confiscated from the wealthy and redistributed to the masses, to be consumed in a massive orgy. Anarchy reigns as the ultimate fate is a foregone conclusion. People devolve into hedonistic monsters.

The leaders of Country B convene. They decide that survival of the species is the ultimate goal. All social programs are suspended. Every bit of human-energy in society is dedicated toward the construction of a spaceship that will carry 1,000 individuals to the nearest habitable planet. Even those who are not designated to go on the ship channel all of their energy into the spaceship construction. Even as their death approaches, the meaning of their work is imbued with a spiritual importance. They are the inheritors and perpetuators of all human history. The spaceship is constructed, and all but 1,000 individuals from Country B are annihilated. Mankind survives.

I am not sure a minimax strategy is sacrosanct.

****Disclaimer: These hypotheticals were written by a privileged straight white male in an air-conditioned American office setting, sitting in a comfy office chair and sipping on free iced coffee provided by work, and he probably never has to worry about being marginalized or being dealt the worst hand.*****

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10429
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by jacob » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm

Minmax is subject to whatever values you put into the value matrix. Lets assume that two countries both enter values in accordance with valuing perceived happiness, individualism, and literacy in that order. The particular chosen values can be changed without loss of generalization. The optimal strategy is not dependent on the kind of values ... just on the degree they're valued.

I suppose I should point out that there's only ONE such matrix. It's not like each person gets to make their own one. The full matrix (or rather tensor) includes every single player in the system (including Country A and Country B). Minmax takes care of the rest(*).

Minmax would then conclude that the country which voted according to minmax would do better at maximizing those three values than the country which votes according to each individuals personal preferences (call it maxmax) which again would do better than the country where everybody voted according to a single issues (call it maxsingle). IOW, given the values, the foremost would be a better run country (values are better enjoyed) than the latter.

The strategy is sacrosanct. The values are not ... but the values do seem to be biochemically given. Therefore, we can probably get a lot closer to the ideal society than we currently are.

However, that goes back to the "this could be solved in theory" ... but "most humans aren't ready for it [mainly because they aren't used to it]".

We have solutions ... but we don't have much of anything in terms of how to go from A to B.

Kinda why I suggested (in another thread) that some problems are impossible to solve at this Kegan level.

(*) It's kinda ironic that I'm arguing for a rational approach here ... while I the same time, I'm pointing out how humans tend to be irrational in another thread.

However, what matters in terms of this thread is that it's [reasonable] possible to tell that the selection mechanism of the government is borked to the degree that the people have no faith in the government mechanism. This reasoning behind this doesn't even need to be precise as long as it's accurate.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:35 pm

jacob wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:56 am

So for example, suppose that a typical human has a problem with something. Being human, there are two possible solutions: economic and social.

The human can exit the situation and try to find another situation. That's the strategy of changing the economical relation. Everybody on the right would say this is the best way.

However, other humans would try to fix the situation by complaining about it or convincing others in the hope that the social relations would change. That's the strategy of changing the social relations. Everybody on the left would say that this is the best way.

Color me a little skeptical. I seem to remember lengthy threads here about two years back where the left voting contingent said disaffected flyover folks (many former "blue dog" dems, granted) should pack up and move to alleviate their problems while the people themselves voted right to stick with their communities with hopes the existing situation could be improved, which was judged foolish by the left advocates.

It would probably be easy to find a variety of issues that would illustrate that, as a function of the issue, either political side leans towards out with the old, in with the new; versus saying fix what we've got. Actually, by definition "conservative" would imply a bias towards fixing what we've got.

In reality it takes a balance, of course. So maybe it is not so bad people fall all over a spectrum. I'm not surprised that is the vignette that persevered through evolution.

The wise voter realizes that what is best for the society writ large is likely best for him, or if it's a far future consideration, for his children/descendants. Not entirely unlike investing, something a significant majority does not have a lot of proclivity towards. What is best for society includes both a social and economic component, which are hard to disentangle from one another as has been pointed out above.
Last edited by IlliniDave on Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Campitor » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:08 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:10 am
@Campitor: I don't like it when people throw words like "psychopath" around freely.
That sentiment was hard to infer from your "do you want to be in a Rihanna video" comment. I guess that was a fancy way of calling me dramatic? If so, that is the politest ad-hominem attack I've ever received. :D

I never said psychopath. I said sociopath. There is a significant difference between the two in regards to cause and effect. Here is an article by a psychiatrist that explains the difference:https://psychcentral.com/blog/differenc ... sociopath/

Now back to the sociopaths and the emotionally disturbed: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... asheet.pdf
  • In 2014, 4,300 young people ages 10 to 24 were victims of homicide—an average of 12 each day.
  • Homicide is the 3rd leading cause of death for young people ages 10 to 24 years old.
  • Among homicide victims 10 to 24 years old in 2014, 86% (3,703) were male and 14% (597) were female.
  • Among homicide victims ages 10 to 24 years old in 2014, 86% were killed with a firearm.
  • Youth homicides and assault-related injuries result in an estimated $18.2 billion in combined medical and work loss costs.
  • Among 10 to 24 year-olds, homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans; the second leading cause of death for Hispanics; and the third leading cause of death American Indians and Alaska Natives.
  • Homicide rates in 2014 among non-Hispanic, AfricanAmerican males 10-24 years of age (48.2 per 100,000) exceeded those of Hispanic males (9.6 per 100,000) and non-Hispanic, White males in the same age group (2.6 per 100,000).
  • In a 2015 nationally representative sample of youth in grades 9-12:
    • 7.8% reported being in a physical fight on school property in the 12 months preceding the survey.
    • 10.3% of male students and 5.0% of female students reported being in a physical fight on school propertyn in the 12 months preceding the survey.
    • 5.6% did not go to school on one or more days in the 30 days preceding the survey because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from school.
    • 4.1% reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife or club) on school property on one or more days in the 30 days preceding the survey.
    • 6.0% reported being threatened or injured with a weapon (gun, knife or club) on school property one or more times in the 12 months preceding the survey.
  • In 2014, 501,581 young people ages 10 to 24 were treated in emergency departments for injuries sustained from physical assaults.
  • In 2015, of a nationally-representative sample of students in grades 9-12, 2.9% reported being in a physical fight one or more times in the previous 12 months that resulted in injuries that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse.
Perhaps there is a way of effectively treating these violent children and adolescents but it shouldn't be at the expense of other students who demonstratively try to learn. Lets focus on removing these violent and disruptive kids/teens from our normal schools and move them into clinical programs and locations that have the best chance to rehabilitate them. This will have the 80% Pareto effect that would boost the student achievement of the poor.
Last edited by Campitor on Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by BRUTE » Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:13 pm

jacob wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:56 am
While more options are better for the rational human phenotype, most humans are not rational but rather "rationalizing".

There's a lot of research showing that more options tend to
  • Decrease happiness
  • Increase anxiety
  • Lead to analysis/paralysis
  • Prefer to follow rather than lead (e.g. rules and directions instead of accepting personal responsibility for all the choices)
  • Bias against upside in favor of avoiding downside.
*rolleyes*

sure, the 9 year old who has the choice between juvenile hall and a paper route to support himself is going to be experience decreased happiness and analysis paralysis. brute is all in favor of avoiding the downside in this case.

[edit]

maybe there is eventually a downside to options. but in this case, the options go from 1 (jail) to 2, (jail, not jail). so peak option has definitely not yet been reached.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4031
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:00 am

jacob wrote:If you have a community of humans with diverse neurochemistry and knowing that 99.9% of humans don't like pain, it would better to make laws (using laws because humans like to follow laws because it requires less thinking) that ensure a minimum compromise than going for laws that make 51% happy but 49% unhappy.
In "Passionate Marriage", Schnarch explains that seeking a minmax compromise, such is often recommended in most conventional marital therapy, ultimately leads to "bed death." I think this is why those with entrepreneurial spirit are so valued in the American mythos and/or practice of the free market. Risk-takers, those who are willing to gamble on a situation that offers overall higher expectation of returns (profit or pleasure), with inherent higher possibility of utter failure or severe pain, will under rational analysis contribute more to the overall system.

Also, I agree with JP's previous observation that the differences between the left/right wings of the aspirational class are currently being over-emphasized. For instance, it's not so much the case that middle-aged affluent white males who vote Republican are wired for economic vs. social solutions, it's more that they seek to receive their social solutions from their wives or girlfriends, rather than government entities :lol: (For instance, 10 minutes ago when my BF interrupted my Tech Studies by dumping a basket of his laundry on top of the bed where I was studying, and then attempted to lure me away from my efforts to better my individual economic situation by offering to take me out to breakfast.)

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10429
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by jacob » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:45 am

That's like saying that it's a bad thing when minimax applied to by dietitians to dietary choices causes "cheesecake death" in favor of avoiding "real death by heart attack". Presumably people go to the dietitian because they want to avoid an early real death. Otherwise, they'd consult the bakery which uses another pay-off matrix and therefore arrives at a different result.

I'll note that the payoff matrix is complete and thus includes risk as per the expectation values. Insofar those values are correct, the gambler who is not adhering to the optimal strategy will steadily be picked off. There's basically no way around it. It's like playing roulette.

Rather, it's more likely that the game in complete and people take stupid risks because they like a good story. When you're down at the country club, it's way more fun to talk about how you own a big hotel with your name outside covered in gold plating even if it's heading towards bankruptcy than it is to talk about your "1-age"-balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds even if the ROI on the latter is higher. This, I suppose, is also why some young tech-millionaires like to blow it on being a venture capitalist [because it sounds sexy and makes a good story] even as being a VC is mostly a money losing proposition (on average)... it's not much different from playing the lottery.

There's a lot of survivorship bias when it comes to popular impressions. Society gives a lot of credit to those who made it as actors, rockstars, or sports players. They're the legends of our times.

A stupid risk is not to be confused with a calculated risk! A stupid risk would be paying $1 for each roll of the die in order to win $5 for rolling a 6. A calculated risk would be paying anything under 83 cents for each roll. Minimax does exactly the same thing---it's just able to handle more complicated strategies than a coin flip. It's still an accurate calculation of the risk.

Anyhoo ... I digress, but I would like to leave [you] with this: https://kundoc.com/pdf-the-minimax-cons ... racy-.html

(very interesting and highly relevant in these times and also for this thread because its framework is rich enough to deal with it)

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by BRUTE » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:01 pm

I have argued that the minimum-transaction-cost constitution commends representative government and the rule of law, and the minimax constitution commends a bill of rights, separation of powers, and electoral competition.
sounds a bit like Democracy vs. Republic. brute has always been more fond of the Bill of Rights and separation of power than the elections and can-do's.

Campitor
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Campitor » Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:23 pm

Back to the 9%. Listen to this teacher discuss what she endures daily while trying to teach. This isn't isolated as the CDC figures show. If you're going to blame the 9% for anything it's should be for supporting politician, school boards, and school policies that allow students to terrorize their teachers and fellow students. https://youtu.be/-SRCY8FqoyQ

Remove the problem students from normal school and it will have an enormous difference. These disruptive kids need therapy in a clinical setting - there is no teacher good enough that can help them until they get treatment.

Post Reply