jetsfan Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) What you have described with the baby's instincts and cooperative DNA is the exact opposite of free choice. 1391957[/snapback] Determinism. No one here will be able to disprove you. Free Will is a theorem. Why the human psyche requires the perception of free will is still unknown. Edited March 28, 2006 by jetsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 And my question is--what if it were possible for a monkey to get the bananas without he himself getting hit with the hose AND for him to know that none of the other monkeys will ever figure out that the reason they got the hose was because the first monkey got the bananas. What would stop the monkey from going after the bananas? 1391953[/snapback] wiegie, I know you're a constructivist at heart, but is there any point in this discussion that you intend to provide insight into your particular view? We're dealing with nothing more than thoughts loosely based in fact here, I can't believe that amongst this rabble we'll stumble upon absolute truth. Go ahead and speak your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 wiegie, I know you're a constructivist at heart, but is there any point in this discussion that you intend to provide insight into your particular view? We're dealing with nothing more than thoughts loosely based in fact here, I can't believe that amongst this rabble we'll stumble upon absolute truth. Go ahead and speak your mind. 1392159[/snapback] I have no insight--I don't know why people would constrain their behavior and act ethically in situations in which they do not think they will be caught (either by other people, or by a supreme being, or by karma). This type of voluntary self-imposed constraint violates one of the basic fundamental assumptions of economics--and I'm trying to reconcile the two. Someday I seriously might write a book on the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I can't believe that amongst this rabble we'll stumble upon absolute truth. 1392159[/snapback] Heretic! Is this not the Huddle, the definition of absolute truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I have no insight--I don't know why people would constrain their behavior and act ethically in situations in which they do not think they will be caught (either by other people, or by a supreme being, or by karma). This type of voluntary self-imposed constraint violates one of the basic fundamental assumptions of economics--and I'm trying to reconcile the two. Someday I seriously might write a book on the topic. 1392206[/snapback] Perhaps you and your brethren have built your house of cards on a pretty shaky foundation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I can't believe that amongst this rabble we'll stumble upon absolute truth. 1392159[/snapback] oh ye of little faith.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Perhaps you and your brethren have built your house of cards on a pretty shaky foundation. 1392219[/snapback] maybe--although the economic idea of rational, self-interested behavior does give more accurate predictions for human behavior than any other assumption does. (Also, the rationality assumption can't be falsifiable--no matter what behavior we see someone engage in, it is impossible to prove that they didn't behave in a way that they thought would make themselves better off. (NOTE: this in no way means that the assumption is correct.)) As it is right now, if you want to model human behavior, the best way to do so is to use the assumption of self-interested behavior. There are economists who are currently working on building other models based upon other motivations for behavior, but as yet, their models don't work as well. (Do you have a better assumption for why people behave the way that they do?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Someday I seriously might write a book on the topic. 1392206[/snapback] Don't you kind of have to have a point when you write a book? Sure, bringing something but you have to have an educated opinion on the subject matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Don't you kind of have to have a point when you write a book? Sure, bringing something but you have to have an educated opinion on the subject matter. 1392250[/snapback] are you honestly having problems discerning wiegie's point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 maybe--although the economic idea of rational, self-interested behavior does give more accurate predictions for human behavior than any other assumption does. (Also, the rationality assumption can't be falsifiable--no matter what behavior we see someone engage in, it is impossible to prove that they didn't behave in a way that they thought would make themselves better off. (NOTE: this in no way means that the assumption is correct.)) As it is right now, if you want to model human behavior, the best way to do so is to use the assumption of self-interested behavior. There are economists who are currently working on building other models based upon other motivations for behavior, but as yet, their models don't work as well. (Do you have a better assumption for why people behave the way that they do?) 1392231[/snapback] The problem I have is not necessarily the assumption that people will behave in a self-interested fashion, it is that the sel-interest is necessarily economic, as opposed to emotional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 The problem I have is not necessarily the assumption that people will behave in a self-interested fashion, it is that the sel-interest is necessarily economic, as opposed to emotional. 1392271[/snapback] economic self-interests can easily incorporate emotional preferences (economists do not define "economic interests" at all the same as a lawyer would) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 are you honestly having problems discerning wiegie's point? 1392254[/snapback] I am a pretty intelligent guy, but why are you trying to mind fok me over the internets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 economic self-interests can easily incorporate emotional preferences (economists do not define "economic interests" at all the same as a lawyer would) 1392289[/snapback] Fine. Substitute "financial" for "economic" in my post. I hear you saying that self-interest does not necessarily equal money/property, but in you examples and your questions, you imply that the two are equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 This type of voluntary self-imposed constraint violates one of the basic fundamental assumptions of economics--and I'm trying to reconcile the two. 1392206[/snapback] And hence one of my beefs with economics. The assumption is too simplistic to account for the observed phenomena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 And my question is--what if it were possible for a monkey to get the bananas without he himself getting hit with the hose AND for him to know that none of the other monkeys will ever figure out that the reason they got the hose was because the first monkey got the bananas. What would stop the monkey from going after the bananas? 1391953[/snapback] So now athiests are monkeys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 So now athiests are monkeys? 1392951[/snapback] Aren't we all? Oh wait, some people don't believe in science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 So now athiests are monkeys? 1392951[/snapback] I am racially offended by that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 hmm... 3 people in a row who refuse to answer my monkey question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 hmm... 3 people in a row who refuse to answer my monkey question 1393119[/snapback] You should change your name to Scopes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 hmm... 3 people in a row who refuse to answer my monkey question 1393119[/snapback] Before I answer it, please tell me if the monkey has a conscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 (edited) Before I answer it, please tell me if the monkey has a conscience. 1393140[/snapback] I also would like to know if the monkey was raised in a religious household. Edited March 29, 2006 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 hmm... 3 people in a row who refuse to answer my monkey question 1393119[/snapback] Seriously - unless you are saying that monkeys and human beings are the same intellectually/emotionally/ethically, who cares about the answer to yout f-ing monkey question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 amazing, you guys all loved the monkey example and how it could help us to understand human behavior when it was first posted, but now for some reason you don't think it is valid anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 amazing, you guys all loved the monkey example and how it could help us to understand human behavior when it was first posted, but now for some reason you don't think it is valid anymore. 1393305[/snapback] I refuse to acknowlege that I "loved the monkey". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 amazing, you guys all loved the monkey example and how it could help us to understand human behavior when it was first posted, but now for some reason you don't think it is valid anymore. 1393305[/snapback] i, for one, welcome our simian overlords wait, has that joke been used yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.