I think that altruism is an emotional tendency wired into our circuitry. People will very quickly be altruistic with anyone they feel a connection with, which is another part of our circuitry.

In larger systems, like on a national level, however, people are so sufficiently disconnected that they have literally no emotional connection with the rest of society. In such cases, economists turn out to be right. Since humans have no reason to behave otherwise, they simply optimize their own gain.

Every time someone sits down to do taxes, if they posses the mathematical ability to do so, they will exactly the optimal solution to do their taxes because in that case they have no concern for the welfare of the government. It is 100% the logical part of their brain that they are relying on. The emotional part simply doesn't matter anymore. They are running off a logical optimization program under the assumption that the goal is the preferred outcome for the emotional part of the brain. Objectives in life do not come from rationality. We have no purpose to live without our emotional wiring, which is slight more sophisticated than our lizard brain and slightly less sophisticated than our rational brain, but our rational brain depends on the emotional brain. In problems where someone is working against a sufficiently large population, there's simply no reason to consult the emotional part of the brain. It's just take take take, because there is no other objective for the emotional brain to demand.

8/3/2011 4:15:03 PM

Quote :

"The incredibly stupid assumption of socialism is that people will, at some point, for some reason, act on behalf of the "greater good" and stop worrying about what will enrich their individual lives. No one has explained why that would happen, or how it would come about; TWW "socialists" have tactfully evaded this reality every time, to my knowledge."

Uh, plenty of socialists including myself understand peoples' drive to take care of themselves first. This is precisely why we want to see the costs (and benefits) of industry internalized by the people doing the work.

8/3/2011 4:48:40 PM

He said this

Quote :

"No one has explained why that would happen, or how it would come about; TWW "socialists" have tactfully evaded this reality every time, to my knowledge.""

Are you trying to make every one of your posts comedic gold or are making peoples points for them in such a plain to see way just what CM kids are doing on the webernets these days?

8/3/2011 5:10:34 PM

Quote :

"My contention is that humans are inherently self-interested, but this does not mean that they always serve only their own interests, it simply means that they prioritize ends and work to achieve those ends."

And it assumes it's own premise. I can say "why do they do X?" and the answer will be "it serves their best interest" Why? Because it serves their best interest. That's begging the question.

Quote :

"The incredibly stupid assumption of socialism is that people will, at some point, for some reason, act on behalf of the "greater good" and stop worrying about what will enrich their individual lives."

I've never made that assumption. I believe people will do whatever their environment causes them to do.

Quote :

"I think that altruism is an emotional tendency wired into our circuitry. People will very quickly be altruistic with anyone they feel a connection with, which is another part of our circuitry."

How do you explain the outcome of something like the dictator game?

8/3/2011 5:36:13 PM

Quote :

"Proof of this grand conspiracy? Mainly the "they're trying to steal from the average americans", that's the conspiracy part."

Why do you keep insisting were talking about some conspiracy when we are talking about Crony Capitalism? Using the word oligarchy in this context doesn't imply a conspiracy but as best I can tell you think it does, which is stupid.

Quote :

"I guess you could credit the first person or thing to expose you to a tv."

No, this is not what you said. You said I have learned to want a bigger TV. But I don't want a bigger TV than I have even though I could perfectly afford it. So you need a different explanation.

Quote :

"It's the algorithm that evolution uses that is meaningless"

You don't know this.

Quote :

"we know there are better ways to do things now, and the ability to learn gives us the tools we need to use those better ways"

Oh for sure we can learn and we can make tools. But we don't have enough data such that by learning we can fully and absolutely overcome our genetics. In fact, I think we probably have a whole shit ton of data that says we haven't learned it yet. Think fear, lotteries, recenecy effect, etc.

Quote :

" I believe people will do whatever their environment causes them to do"

That's a pretty generic statement given the discussion here.

Quote :

"How do you explain the outcome of something like the dictator game?"

I wasn't going to respond to this point because I'm not familiar with this, but I went to wikipedia to see what it said and this is right up front:
though precisely what to conclude from the evidence is controversial.
So I'm not even sure why would you even ask this question.

[Edited on August 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2011 5:45:25 PM

Quote :

"Are you trying to make every one of your posts comedic gold or are making peoples points for them in such a plain to see way just what CM kids are doing on the webernets these days?"

In what way did I not answer his point? He characterizes socialists one way, saying they never answer a problem that occurs because they are that way. I'm saying some socialists, myself included, are not that way, nor is it necessary for one to be "socialist".

Would it really strain your milk so much just to read posts carefully, and to think carefully before replying? I also love your envious dick-riding about CM, keep it up, it always gives me a good chuckle about you

8/3/2011 5:45:35 PM

I apologize, I guess you're saying that people won't act for the greater good but socialism will still work regardless?

[Edited on August 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2011 5:49:10 PM

Quote :

"Uh, plenty of socialists including myself understand peoples' drive to take care of themselves first. This is precisely why we want to see the costs (and benefits) of industry internalized by the people doing the work."

Here's the problem: you imagine a world where workers collectively own the means of production. Who determines wages? Are we operating off "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? If so, then you are asking the skilled or smart workers to sacrifice (be altruistic) so that less valuable workers get as much as they allegedly need.

If not, and some sort of hierarchy is indeed necessary to determine what labor is worth, then free market capitalism is the only system that can accommodate labor price discovery.

Quote :

"And it assumes it's own premise. I can say "why do they do X?" and the answer will be "it serves their best interest" Why? Because it serves their best interest. That's begging the question."

If you say "why do they do X?," the answer is NOT "it serves their best interest." The answer is, "because they think performing X action will help them achieve Y result."

Quote :

"I've never made that assumption. I believe people will do whatever their environment causes them to do."

How useful.

[Edited on August 3, 2011 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

8/3/2011 5:56:15 PM

Quote :

"Why do you keep insisting were talking about some conspiracy when we are talking about Crony Capitalism?"

The idea that there is some exclusive group of people stealing from the average americans and keeping them unaware of it is absolutely a conspiracy. People would be very upset if such a thing were true, and the media would be happy to report on it.

Quote :

" You said I have learned to want a bigger TV. But I don't want a bigger TV than I have even though I could perfectly afford it. So you need a different explanation."

I obviously have no idea of your TV needs, such would require me to be able to read minds. I was merely using it as an example. People want material things because they have learned to want material things, this was the only point I was trying to make.

Quote :

"You don't know this."

Name a problem evolution has solved that we cannot. Flight? Breathing underwater? Gaining energy from the sun? Hell we even made it to space, evolution would have never dreamed of doing such a thing. We can communicate with others from across the world, hell we even have the destructive power to not only kill every other thing on earth, but to destroy the very earth itself. What do we need evolution for?

Brute force is know to be inefficient, we know better algorithms, it's simply not the best way to do things, our other methods as well as our other numerous advantages have rendered it unnecessary.

Quote :

"I'm not even sure why would you even ask this question."

While I am throughly impressed, not only with your ability to wikipedia, but also with your ability to almost restrain yourself from talking about something you're unfamiliar with, I asked it because it provides an interesting aspect to the discussion and I wanted to hear his opinion on it.

Quote :

"Who determines wages? Are we operating off "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? If so, then you are asking the skilled or smart workers to sacrifice (be altruistic) so that less valuable workers get as much as they allegedly need."

It's more out of habit than selflessness. The neither the selfish man nor the selfless one were born that way, the world around them made them that way.

Quote :

"The answer is, "because they think performing X action will help them achieve Y result.""

Oh I guess I missed a step in between. Why do they want "Y result"? Let me guess, Y is in their best interest.

So even though Y may be completely at odds with their self interest, things like suicide, giving money to charity, etc. somehow still serves their best interest. It's circular reasoning.

8/3/2011 7:06:51 PM

Quote :

"The idea that there is some exclusive group of people stealing from the average americans and keeping them unaware of it is absolutely a conspiracy. "

Oh, I gotcha, you were talking about what McDanger has been posting regarding capitalism.

Quote :

"Name a problem evolution has solved that we cannot. Flight? Breathing underwater? Gaining energy from the sun? Hell we even made it to space, evolution would have never dreamed of doing such a thing. We can communicate with others from across the world, hell we even have the destructive power to not only kill every other thing on earth, but to destroy the very earth itself. What do we need evolution for? Brute force is know to be inefficient, we know better algorithms, it's simply not the best way to do things, our other methods as well as our other numerous advantages have rendered it unnecessary."

You haven't understood anything I have posted.

Quote :

"I asked it because it provides an interesting aspect to the discussion and I wanted to hear his opinion on it"

So a whole host of PhD wannabees have studied the problem and can't decide on the results yet you think the opinion of some guy on the wolf web is interesting?

8/3/2011 8:15:51 PM

Quote :

"I apologize, I guess you're saying that people won't act for the greater good but socialism will still work regardless?"

That's right; there has to be a transition toward that system. Anybody who tries to sell you on a system and has no idea of how we get from here to there is bullshitting you.

Quote :

"Here's the problem: you imagine a world where workers collectively own the means of production. Who determines wages? Are we operating off "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? If so, then you are asking the skilled or smart workers to sacrifice (be altruistic) so that less valuable workers get as much as they allegedly need."

There are no wages and the general goal of socialists is to end the wage system. There's no sacrifice demanded from the smart or skilled workers at all; they're valued for their contributions, but not out of proportion with manual labor as is currently the case. Why should planning bring with it orders of magnitude more compensation?

Quote :

"If not, and some sort of hierarchy is indeed necessary to determine what labor is worth, then free market capitalism is the only system that can accommodate labor price discovery."

That's a bad syllogism regardless of what belief system you adhere to. Either way there's no reason not to value goods by the average number of hours required to make it. We went through this argument a few pages ago, where perceived perverse incentives (on this issue) were discussed and responded to.

8/3/2011 8:24:25 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I gotcha, you were talking about what McDanger has been posting regarding capitalism."

I think I originally responded to destroyer, but I don't really remember.

Quote :

"You haven't understood anything I have posted."

Care to explain?

Quote :

"So a whole host of PhD wannabees have studied the problem and can't decide on the results yet you think the opinion of some guy on the wolf web is interesting?"

Why do you even bother responding if you have nothing to add to the discussion? Your post literally added nothing to the discussion and I regret even having read it. I'm beginning to remember why I began ignoring your posts.

8/3/2011 8:25:03 PM

Quote :

"Your post literally added nothing to the discussion and I regret even having read it."

No, I want to know what stupid angle of "gotcha" you were going to try to take.

Quote :

"Care to explain?"

You mean when I don't understand the tripe you post it's cool to harass but when you don't understand you want me to bother to explain it? You have it in your head that I am claiming evolution will lead us to "solutions" or some shit despite a related comment where I'm saying we don't know one way or the other even if I suspected it could. That isn't what I am saying at all.

8/3/2011 8:50:04 PM

Quote :

"No, I want to know what stupid angle of "gotcha" you were going to try to take."

I know this may seem strange to you, but I enjoy debate, I learn new things, I better understand the opinions of others as well as my own. I literally just wanted to know his opinion of the concept I mentioned. It certainly shows people can have some strange interest in other people the haven't, and never will, meet; in fact the person could even be imaginary, yet people will still give to them. What's funnier still is while the average person will give the other up to 50% when just given money and offered to split it, when offered to give the other money or take that person's money, they will not give the other any, but they will not take any as well. It adds a strange twist to the ideas of both self interest and altruism. But I'm probably not interested in any of that, I just want to trick some anonymous person on the internet.

8/3/2011 9:40:16 PM

Quote :

"It's more out of habit than selflessness. The neither the selfish man nor the selfless one were born that way, the world around them made them that way."

What's more habit than selflessness? For reference, here's what you quoted:

"Who determines wages? Are we operating off "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? If so, then you are asking the skilled or smart workers to sacrifice (be altruistic) so that less valuable workers get as much as they allegedly need."

Quote :

"Oh I guess I missed a step in between. Why do they want "Y result"? Let me guess, Y is in their best interest. So even though Y may be completely at odds with their self interest, things like suicide, giving money to charity, etc. somehow still serves their best interest. It's circular reasoning."

Self interest and best interests are two different concepts. Best interests are determined after the fact. For instance, for a person that gets t-boned by an 18-wheeler on the way to the grocery store, going to the store was not in their best interests. It was certainly out of self interest that they attempted to reach the store, though. They needed food or some other good.

People are generally rational (at least in that they do what they think is necessary to fulfill their top priorities, regardless of its actual efficacy), but they are not omniscient. In fact, humans have very limited knowledge of the world. Science and reasoning tells us a lot, but it doesn't tell us outcomes of complex series of events.

Suicide is actually a great example, perhaps the best - successful suicides are still examples of people acting out their own desires. Something McDanger said was quite insightful:

Quote :

"Just because people act according to stimuli that, necessarily, must enter their brain (making it about them), doesn't mean our previous concept of altruism doesn't correspond to anything."

He's absolutely right here. People actually do exhibit what could be considered altruistic behavior: action which has overall negative results for the individual, with positive result for others. Even in this case, altruistic people are acting out of self interest: their desire to reach various ends.

The argument, then, must be that individuals can be conditioned to be altruistic. Otherwise, good workers will always reap greater rewards than bad ones. The only way to prevent this would be to somehow condition all people in such a way that they willingly sacrifice their own comfort for perfect strangers. That's the part that I don't buy.

Quote :

"There are no wages and the general goal of socialists is to end the wage system. There's no sacrifice demanded from the smart or skilled workers at all; they're valued for their contributions, but not out of proportion with manual labor as is currently the case. Why should planning bring with it orders of magnitude more compensation?"

Quote :

"Either way there's no reason not to value goods by the average number of hours required to make it. We went through this argument a few pages ago, where perceived perverse incentives (on this issue) were discussed and responded to."

This is why socialism is not just unlikely but impossible. When you say "end the wage system," that means, "eliminate rewards that are in proportion to the value of the labor performed." Don't think of it in terms of money, think of it in terms of goods; people want "stuff" in exchange for their actions.

On the topic of why planning should offer much greater reward than the carrying out of that plan: because planning successful enterprises is pretty damn hard. Factories don't build themselves - someone has to set out to build it, find workers to run it, etc. Running a successful enterprise could be rewarding, but it can also be stressful and a general pain in the ass. Does privilege help? Yeah. People squander privilege every day, though; Some overcome their lack of privilege.

There's nothing perverse about the incentive to succeed. Competitive spirit inspires innovation; having everything you "need" breeds complacency.

8/3/2011 11:55:50 PM

Quote :

"He's absolutely right here. People actually do exhibit what could be considered altruistic behavior: action which has overall negative results for the individual, with positive result for others. Even in this case, altruistic people are acting out of self interest: their desire to reach various ends. The argument, then, must be that individuals can be conditioned to be altruistic. Otherwise, good workers will always reap greater rewards than bad ones. The only way to prevent this would be to somehow condition all people in such a way that they willingly sacrifice their own comfort for perfect strangers. That's the part that I don't buy."

But people don't even need to be perfectly altruistic in a post-industrial society. People just need a notion of working both for their own good AND for the public good (as a joint effort). Once they internalize the notion that the health of the community and their own health is tied closely, they work out of enlightened self-interest and solidarity.

One thing to keep in mind always when considering economic systems is that we aren't starting from scratch, here. Capital exists.

Quote :

"This is why socialism is not just unlikely but impossible. When you say "end the wage system," that means, "eliminate rewards that are in proportion to the value of the labor performed." Don't think of it in terms of money, think of it in terms of goods; people want "stuff" in exchange for their actions."

And people will get stuff, good stuff. Stuff beyond the bare minimum. There really is enough to go around, and interlocking industries can see the benefit in supporting the structure as a whole to meet everyone's needs. Socialism is the mentalization of the economy with a different aim in mind: to provide people with the goods necessary to life. Labor takes on a quite different role when you're creating direct value with your hands that's no longer sapped by your employer for other uses. Instead you work to directly support yourself and your surrounding community.

Quote :

"On the topic of why planning should offer much greater reward than the carrying out of that plan: because planning successful enterprises is pretty damn hard. Factories don't build themselves - someone has to set out to build it, find workers to run it, etc. Running a successful enterprise could be rewarding, but it can also be stressful and a general pain in the ass. Does privilege help? Yeah. People squander privilege every day, though; Some overcome their lack of privilege. There's nothing perverse about the incentive to succeed. Competitive spirit inspires innovation; having everything you "need" breeds complacency."

See, I disagree. I got everything I needed as a kid, and I excelled. The people I see that are doing poorly now didn't get what they needed, and I feel bad for them. Others did, but now no longer get what they need to become successful and productive members of society (due to perhaps personal failings). I'm just not into the moralization of these things. To be the end consequences are the moral target, and so to live around a bunch of people in miserable squalor is not stabilizing or good for my life (or anybody's, really, except the people wealthy enough to insulate themselves from it). I'd rather we take the steps to achieve better results. Idealism always negates itself.

8/4/2011 9:23:41 AM

Quote :

"There's no sacrifice demanded from the smart or skilled workers at all; they're valued for their contributions, but not out of proportion with manual labor as is currently the case. Why should planning bring with it orders of magnitude more compensation?"

Because it is orders of magnitude more difficult and take orders of magnitude more resources and time to become competent at it. Do you think it's a coincidence that we have many more laborers than engineers? Or a capitalistic conspiracy?

8/4/2011 9:24:08 AM

^goddammit what you just quoted is the kind of shit that makes my stomach turn.

8/4/2011 10:18:33 AM

Quote :

"Because it is orders of magnitude more difficult and take orders of magnitude more resources and time to become competent at it. Do you think it's a coincidence that we have many more laborers than engineers? Or a capitalistic conspiracy?"

I disagree with this. I think that people tend to develop their talents based on their habits; kids who are set up with the things they need develop good habits early on, and become intelligent as a result of it. Think of how many engineers on here can compute an integral but cannot, for the life of them, think. You can train people to do a lot of things; cleverness is a habit.

8/4/2011 10:30:26 AM

apparently you cant train someone to use a semicolon or comma correctly-

but besides that, this is quite possibly the more erroneous thing ive ever read in the soapbox:

Quote :

"kids who are set up with the things they need develop good habits early on, and become intelligent as a result of it. "

absolutely fucking pathetic- i always knew you were a joke, but you cant possibly think this.

[Edited on August 4, 2011 at 10:41 AM. Reason : -]

8/4/2011 10:40:25 AM

Quote :

"apparently you cant train someone to use a semicolon or comma correctly-"

Did you understand what I wrote or not?

Quote :

"absolutely fucking pathetic- i always knew you were a joke, but you cant possibly think this."

I'm not the only person to think it, even Adam Smith thought it. Questions of why division of labor develops have been around for a long time. In a letter correspondence with Thomas Pownall (colonial governor of Mass.), he argued roughly the line I argued above. Pownall argued that division of labor comes down to differences in intelligence or quality of the person, which is what you're arguing ("I have a better job because I'm better than you").

8/4/2011 10:48:42 AM

8/4/2011 11:33:46 AM

Quote :

"What's more habit than selflessness?"

Your question was "what would cause the person who 'deserves more' give to the guy with less". You implied that it would have to be out of selflessness, but I was pointing out that it's more out of habit.

Quote :

"Self interest and best interests are two different concepts."

I was using them interchangeably, more as his "self interest" is what he thinks it is.

Quote :

"People are generally rational"

On aggregate only.

Quote :

"but it doesn't tell us outcomes of complex series of events"

Yes it does. Sometimes it can only give guesses, but they are generally accurate to some degree.

Quote :

"successful suicides are still examples of people acting out their own desires"

How do you know what they want? You've assumed a premise. It's quite likely that its something else driving them to do that. Additionally do you think killing themselves is in their self interest.

Quote :

"Even in this case, altruistic people are acting out of self interest: their desire to reach various ends."

Circular logic.

Quote :

"The argument, then, must be that individuals can be conditioned to be altruistic."

This assumes that they aren't anyways. Man is naturally nothing, he becomes what he is made to do. It's not that he's self interested unless he is trained otherwise, it's that he is trained to be self interested or not or some complex level between the two.

8/4/2011 5:50:10 PM

Quote :

"Man is naturally nothing"

8/4/2011 5:58:32 PM