Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Certainly, we cant argue that one is somehow more aesthetically pleasing than the other...therefore their illogical preference for the inferior living structure is decided purely by social programming. This type of illogical decision making is pervasive in myriad daily decisions that people make. These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...

I see where you're coming from. You believe that imperfect information eliminates free will. Why is that?

Or perhaps I'm wrong and you believe cultural structures destroy it? Let's say I want to build a geodesic dome house (I would very much like to) but my local codes prohibit it. Have I lost my free will?

I dont disagree that building codes are potentially part of the problem....and my argument isnt that there isnt (edit...the illusion of) choice. My argument is that peoples choices are determined by their genetics and environment. In other words, if these are changed their choices change....there is a large element of determinism working upon people....

The field of behavioral economics takes to task the standard notion of the rational economic actor. It also focuses on how the way choices are structured and presented to us affects the choices we make. Look at the chart of percentage of organ donors among european countries. There is a huge disparity between those countries that have an opt-in organ donation system and those that have an opt-out system. One would think that similar cultures dhould have similar rates, but in fact it is the system and the way the choice is presented that influnces peoples decision in this case. This systemic influence works on all of our decisions in a largely subconcious manner. http://nudges.org/tag/organ-donations/

Instead of social engineering this could be called "choice architecture"

How does this sound to you?

WHAT IS CHOICE ARCHITECTURE?

Decision makers do not make choices in a vacuum. They make them in an environment where many features, noticed and unnoticed, can influence their decisions. The person who creates that environment is, in our terminology, a choice architect. The goal of Nudge is to show how choice architecture can be used to help nudge people to make better choices (as judged by themselves) without forcing certain outcomes upon anyone, a philosophy we call libertarian paternalism. The tools highlighted are: defaults, expecting error, understanding mappings, giving feedback, structuring complex choices, and creating incentives.

It seems as if your refutation of free will relies on the idea that because all options are not known (i.e. our choices are shaped by our own culturally-based conceptions of what's possible), any unknown options can be considered not to exist at all for the purpose of determining whether we are free to pursue those ends.

Would that be a fair assessment?

Kind of...This is an old philosophical debate so were not dealing with anythin new here. It seems like our system is built on false ideas like perfect information or that we are rational economic actors. These also play into the general belef that we as individuals are responsible for our actions. I think all of this is a gross oversimplification of a reality that is much more deterministic. When i talk about determinism im going off this definition: Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen.

If we want to improve things on planet earth we need to take this into account...hence be cognizant that the system/ environment and our genetics (vestiges of our evolution) influence our decisions.

Look at the way teenagers make decisions. In many cases their intelligence has been hijacked by their hormones. Who in that case is really making the decision?

BTW...i dont really have a firm belief regarding this topic (or most topics actually :-) Im just arguing a particular position....otherwise we have an echo chamber here. That goes for most everything I write here. Every debate and discussion should be tempered by doubt and competing views on a topic which indicates that the true complexity of reality is being taken into consideration.

doodle wrote: Let me ask you a question...do you think most Americans would prefer to live in a geodesic dome or a traditional house? If you say traditional house, I would ask you how do you think that these people came to prefer to live in a house that is inherntly weaker, more expensive, and more material and labor intensive?

Spoken like someone who has not read the over 40 years of Mother Earth News.

Geodesic domes make poor use of interior space, negating that advantage, and they tend to be very difficult to seal well unless constructed to standards and of materials far higher grade than the traditional stick built home.

These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...

Someone needs a diaper change.

Ad hominem attacks....nice.

Im not negating that choices exist in theory, Im stating that the mechnisms by which you arrive at those choices (genetics, hormones, environment) are predetermined for you. If you live outside of the norm, you by definition become an eccentric.

Did you look at the organ donation statistics? I think that is a pretty strong case for how our choices are influenced by the ways in which these choices are presented to us.

Free will vs determinism is not a new debate. What Im arguing is that our choices as individuals are more deterministic than we think.  When people talk about wealth inequality they discuss concepts like their "drive" and "perseverance" that lead individuals to succeed. But where does this "drive" come from if not from ones environment or genetic makeup?

Eliminating the welfare state is of course one way to change the environmental factors that influence individuals decisions. However, there are many other environmental factors which determine an individuals ability to suceed as well as genetic ones. Just cutting out the support structure of society is not going to lead to flourishing abundance for every person.

Take a look at this organization and book called Nudge. I think they are onto an interesting idea with this concept of choice architecture. http://nudges.org/

The authors of the book propose what they call...libertarian paternalism which is paternalism in the sense that “it tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves" (p. 5). It is libertarian in the sense that it aims to ensure that “people should be free to opt out of specified arrangements if they choose to do so.”?

These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...

I should say also that a totally determinist viewpoint would say that those eccentrics "choices" are also predetermined for them. So I misused the word choice there.

The prior interactions of this person with their environment and their genetic makeup have caused them to take a life path that is outside of the norm....or eccentric. Because these people are marginalized and of a small number, their ability to influence the system is quite small and therefore even though their views might be beneficial or better for the greater society, their ability to efect change on the system as a whole is minimal.

So what Im saying is that the influences and potential interactions with eccentric outliers that could have causal effects on the system are minimal. It isnt that eccentrics exercise choice and the mainstream doesnt, its that the options that the eccentrics bring to the system are so marginalized that the total number of causal outcomes (which we confuse with choices) are reduced.

dualstow wrote: In the end, I'm not pushing for a salary cap on athletes either. But I don't think CEOs are necessarily worse people, and they are invariably portrayed as such.

To me, the value of a salary cap is to maintain competitiveness across markets of different sizes.  If athletes were subject to bidding wars in the absence of a salary cap, it seems like you would quickly get a two tiered league like you see in Major League Baseball where lots of teams have no shot at all at being competitive year after year due to the size of their markets.

I don't know what the right answer is in professional sports and salary caps, but I do like seeing competitive games, and it seems like the NFL has achieved this through its salary cap and the best players are still paid VERY well.

Unlike corporations, which are not trying to be in parity with one another, IMHO sports only works as entertainment when there is at least the perception that all teams have the same opportunity to put together a competitive squad.

MediumTex wrote: To me, the value of a salary cap is to maintain competitiveness across markets of different sizes.  If athletes were subject to bidding wars in the absence of a salary cap, it seems like you would quickly get a two tiered league like you see in Major League Baseball where lots of teams have no shot at all at being competitive year after year due to the size of their markets.
...
Unlike corporations, which are not trying to be in parity with one another, IMHO sports only works as entertainment when there is at least the perception that all teams have the same opportunity to put together a competitive squad.

I don't watch sports at all, but it does seem like the Yankees can afford a better team than everyone else and that's just boring.
Google and Apple can afford the best and brightest and that's exciting.

The Tampa Bay Rays regularly beat the Yankees despite the fact that their entire payroll is probably less than what Derek Jeter makes. Isnt that what the film and book moneyball is about?

doodle wrote:

These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...

I should say also that a totally determinist viewpoint would say that those eccentrics "choices" are also predetermined for them. So I misused the word choice there.

What I am saying, is that determinism is a load of crap and there is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that position.  It is solely an example of navel gazing.

AgAuMoney wrote:

doodle wrote:

These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...

I should say also that a totally determinist viewpoint would say that those eccentrics "choices" are also predetermined for them. So I misused the word choice there.

What I am saying, is that determinism is a load of crap and there is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that position.  It is solely an example of navel gazing.

There is just the appearance of choice because the complexity of our system and the bajillions of interactions we have with our environment are outside of our ability to analyze them for their deterministic effects. Think of a human life like placing a rock at the top of a hill and rolling it down. Depending on the surface of the rock (its genetics) and the topography of the hill (the environment) the same rock can end up in various different places at the bottom of the hill. Even if you roll the same rock down the same hill hundreds of times it will never end up in the same place. But this doesnt negate the fact that the final resting place of the rock is determined by all of the causal relations that its shape had with its environment on the way down.

What appear to you as "choices" are simply deterministic outcomes dictated by your genetic makeup combined with the information that your environment has provided you with.

There is no final answer to this question of free-will vs. determinism, so for you to call the side Im arguing a load of crap is a bit bold.

My point however is not to argue determinism vs. free choice but to merely make the point that human behavior on the whole is largely influenced by the environment that it is surrounded by. People's beliefs, tastes, preferences etc. are not decided upon in a vacuum, they are influenced by society at large which in turn creates a feedback mechanism. How else can the differences between various cultures be accounted for? We might be born with a similar operating system but you cant deny that the software that gets downloaded into us by society  doesnt have a deterministic impact on the way we behave and the "decisions" that we make.

You make some good points doodle.
But the positions that some folks put themselves into.It sure looks intentional.
Lots of problems out there.
Good topic.

Very interesting comments on salary caps from MT and Tenn. (forum members, not states)

doodle wrote: The Tampa Bay Rays regularly beat the Yankees despite the fact that their entire payroll is probably less than what Derek Jeter makes. Isnt that what the film and book moneyball is about?

I don't know. I was planning to read the book this year.

doodle wrote: Take a look at this organization and book called Nudge. I think they are onto an interesting idea with this concept of choice architecture. http://nudges.org/

The authors of the book propose what they call...libertarian paternalism which is paternalism in the sense that “it tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves" (p. 5). It is libertarian in the sense that it aims to ensure that “people should be free to opt out of specified arrangements if they choose to do so.”?

One of the authors is Richard H. Thaler from the Chicago school of economics who spearheaded the behavioral finance movement.  That's impressive.  No one can argue the Chicago school is anything but libertarian, or at least Friedmanist.

BTW, I consider the "Invisible Hand" to be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_bias

TennPaGa wrote: It was more about the search for and deployment of undervalued skills in baseball.

I'd say it was more about the systematic implementation of quantitative analysis to statistics over that of old wive's tales and rule of thumb heuristics.  Quant in baseball was not unknown before the "Moneyball" breakthrough: Bill James' annual Baseball Abstract attempted an unbiased, scientific approach to analyzing games that flew in the face of "common wisdom".  But no one "important" paid any attention.

Nate Silver who accurately predicted all 100% of the political outcomes last year was literally the quant guy in "Moneyball".  I had no idea until recently.

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: Take a look at this organization and book called Nudge. I think they are onto an interesting idea with this concept of choice architecture. http://nudges.org/

The authors of the book propose what they call...libertarian paternalism which is paternalism in the sense that “it tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves" (p. 5). It is libertarian in the sense that it aims to ensure that “people should be free to opt out of specified arrangements if they choose to do so.”?

One of the authors is Richard H. Thaler from the Chicago school of economics who spearheaded the behavioral finance movement.  That's impressive.  No one can argue the Chicago school is anything but libertarian, or at least Friedmanist.

BTW, I consider the "Invisible Hand" to be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_bias

Been reading a bit on social comparison bias....interesting stuff. Its surprising how many libertarians have no problems with corporations capitalizing off of manipulating known human conditions like this. I guess subtle corporate mind control (because it isnt physically overt) is not a threat to our liberties and freedoms....


I like the way governments have reigned in advertisers in in certain countries in Europe for example by forcing them to label whether photos of women in magazines had been digitally altered or retouched. I cant see the problem with government requiring more truth and information in advertising.

doodle wrote: I cant see the problem with government requiring more truth and information in advertising.

Since gov't is the ultimate we lie to you about what we do and why we do it, that is pretty funny.

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: Take a look at this organization and book called Nudge. I think they are onto an interesting idea with this concept of choice architecture. http://nudges.org/

The authors of the book propose what they call...libertarian paternalism which is paternalism in the sense that “it tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves" (p. 5). It is libertarian in the sense that it aims to ensure that “people should be free to opt out of specified arrangements if they choose to do so.”?

One of the authors is Richard H. Thaler from the Chicago school of economics who spearheaded the behavioral finance movement.  That's impressive.  No one can argue the Chicago school is anything but libertarian, or at least Friedmanist.

BTW, I consider the "Invisible Hand" to be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_bias

Friedman sounded libertarian but in practice was a statist like virtually all other economists. For instance, did you know that he helped establish the withholding tax during WW II, so the government could collect much more money than they could ever have collected otherwise?  (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman). So it is very easy to argue that the Chicago/Friedmanite school is far from libertarian.

Libertarian666 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: Take a look at this organization and book called Nudge. I think they are onto an interesting idea with this concept of choice architecture. http://nudges.org/

The authors of the book propose what they call...libertarian paternalism which is paternalism in the sense that “it tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves" (p. 5). It is libertarian in the sense that it aims to ensure that “people should be free to opt out of specified arrangements if they choose to do so.”?

One of the authors is Richard H. Thaler from the Chicago school of economics who spearheaded the behavioral finance movement.  That's impressive.  No one can argue the Chicago school is anything but libertarian, or at least Friedmanist.

BTW, I consider the "Invisible Hand" to be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_bias

Friedman sounded libertarian but in practice was a statist like virtually all other economists. For instance, did you know that he helped establish the withholding tax during WW II, so the government could collect much more money than they could ever have collected otherwise?  (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman). So it is very easy to argue that the Chicago/Friedmanite school is far from libertarian.

I hold that anyone but an anarchist is a "statist."  In fact, if you look up the definition, it would seem to be pretty accurate.  Statism is extremely broad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree. [1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[

Government, by its very nature, is intrusion on private enterprise.  The existence or activity of any government at all comes at some cost to private activity and personal liberty of someone.  So anyone who isn't a full blown anarchist is a statist.  It might help to use a better adjective with less sway in its meaning unless we're really talking about anarchy vs statism.

Government, by its very nature, is intrusion on private enterprise.

Private enterprise is also very intrusive into my private life. Im sure you are all aware of how much information Google has on each one of us. Big powerful corporations must be counterbalanced by big government.

I would be much more amenable to the "libertarian" position if they would  be more vocal about deconstructing the large corporate power structure and entirely removing the limited liability status they enjoy. Until they are more vocal about that, they are nothing but hypocrits in my opinion.

doodle wrote:

Government, by its very nature, is intrusion on private enterprise.

Private enterprise is also very intrusive into my private life. Im sure you are all aware of how much information Google has on each one of us. Big powerful corporations must be counterbalanced by big government.

I would be much more amenable to the "libertarian" position if they would  be more vocal about deconstructing the large corporate power structure and entirely removing the limited liability status they enjoy. Until they are more vocal about that, they are nothing but hypocrits in my opinion.

A little harsh but I can't help but agree.

I was a member of the libertarian party before I gave up the delusion that violence makes the world better. Anarchy is the only morally consistent system.

The most hard-core tiny goverment libertarian sounds like Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Obama to me.

doodle wrote:
I would be much more amenable to the "libertarian" position if they would  be more vocal about deconstructing the large corporate power structure and entirely removing the limited liability status they enjoy. Until they are more vocal about that, they are nothing but hypocrits in my opinion.

Libertarians are hypocrites. I completely agree. They love the state. Limited liability? Come on man. Corporations are creatures of the state protected by the state created by the state to funnel tax money into the state in exchange for the granting of limited liability of the corporate execs. It's basically a mechanism for them to make the profits private and the losses public. "Exxon caught dumping waste into our lakes! Let's get Exxon!" Excuse me, Exxon doesn't exist. It's a peice of paper on a desk in Delaware. People did that. Ohhhhh that's right you can't go after the people who did it because the state goons will gun you down like a dog or throw you in a cage.

If you're scared of the big bad corporations and you think the government is going to help you.....uhhhh....good luck with that. That's a fantasy. 

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote: Big powerful corporations must be counterbalanced by big government.

kshartle beat me to it..... i was about to post that the two (big gov and big corp) are joined at the hip, and expecting that more of the same big government would somehow give you less corporate evil and not more, seems unlikely to put it mildly....