Additionally, I think it would be an important notion to discuss at what point a small scale, "communist" style society (I refer to this purely as individuals seizing the means of production, NOT in a modern ideological way) becomes unable to function. 10 people? 30? 400? 1000? 100,000? That's why the data and behavior patterns of small societies are even more important at times than the behavior patterns of millions. We KNOW what millions of people will do, we have that data. We *don't* have the behavioral data of the small society as it begins to pool into the larger one. I think this is where the marriage of philosophy and economics CAN occur, but we simply just don't have that study yet.
Originally Posted by dechecho
"natural law" is such a vague worthless idea.
I'm sure there is some sort of pattern with the % of people that are murderers. But that pattern doesn't excuse the murderers, nor does it mean we should do nothing about them.
Also, you fucking sound like Hitler when you talk about the "natural order". You're just replacing Darwin's theories with Nash, Rand, Friedrich Hayek, etc.
Last edited by Fe 26; 23 Sep 2017 at 11:49 PM.
natural law this aughhhhh
Probably 5 to 10. You might could get away with more. Family's can be kind of like communism. Especially when the children are older and the parents loose some power.
i drink it up!
I'm still reading your paper, but it's basically stating that game theory falls a part because humans care and act with fairness and reciprocity. This makes sense to me. You see this in chimpanzee societies too — the dominant chimps that socialize and share are the ones that retain power longer. The brutes that maintain order by violence and aggression lose power as soon as they get injured or weaken (the others jump in and beat him to death).
But this article isn't disproving the distribution of creative output along a standard distribution model. That's what I'm calling "natural" laws governing us here (even in our unnatural social games). In fact I would say the fairness and reciprocity found in society plays a pivotal role in the development of these distributions (as long as we think the game is fair we're okay with the way things play out). I also wouldn't think finding exceptions would be damning, because as with any bell curve you have outliers. The goal is to effectively test to see if the bulk of the cases fall within a median range (which they do).
It directly explains why there are superstar athletes, genius inventors, celebrity singers and a massive variety of other unevenly distributed markets out there.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 23 Sep 2017 at 11:54 PM.
also PS. - believe it or not, murders rarely happen in small scale societies. This is actually one subject i know a fucking ton about and murderers and other "deviants" are almost 100% a product of the society they live in, NOT biologically determined. That isn't to say there aren't biological elements of deviance (there are) but not as much as you'd figure.
Also, if Nixon and his bro Mumbles were pretty much Putin and company.
https://www.amazon.com/Pinochet-File...+Pinochet+File
https://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/...er_chiles_9_11
https://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/...p_dictatorship
It falls apart in small scale societies, exactly!!!! because their nature isn't capitalist!!! point proven!!!!!!!!!!
Well not really. Just the pessimistic assumptions of many people that name drop game theory.
Sats posted a pretty good interactive website a few weeks back that showed that game theory actually predicts that not being a douche nozzle is the best way to play any game that uses real metrics like you know, time.
i drink it up!
I agree. I read about this experiment. If you have $20, and you're trading with someone and they have to say yes or no... people would inevitably offer $1.00. Not only did it not work, it's also a bad model because we're all socialized to understand that life isn't just one game. It's a series of games. There is a theory that this is essentially why we have consciences. The experiment I read had a follow-up game. Based on the same rules, if the players knew that they'd get to play the same trading game with the entire room of people (who are all able to watch) they'd offer to trade somewhere over $10 ($11-15) because then they know they'll get to play the game more.
Okay, so we agree. But what I'm saying stands aside this. And even with these types of advanced games involving reciprocity and fairness you'll see the distribution of wealth, over time, distribute the same way. That's exactly why I mentioned and laid out that these games are cooperative by nature at the start. It explains the distribution of wealth by creative output in almost all over these circumstances over time. Look at most creative domains and it's the same. This is why.
The reason I think individuals are at the centre (which I think is sounding like they should "be selfish" or something) is because groups are made up of individuals. If individuals behave in a life affirming, positive way then their family benefits, and their community, and their government. It doesn't work the other way around (which is why communism devolves in to utter hell almost every time people try it)
Last edited by Drewbacca; 24 Sep 2017 at 12:10 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks