Anarchy

Post Reply New Topic

That particular aspect of altruism is not part of my repertoire.

Oh, and Ostrom is not a "weak" choice. I choose her because you attacked the empirical content of Rational Choice, and I - naturally - responded with the best example of the empirical content of Rational Choice... Which is "Governing the Commons". And who is Captain Sideburns? (awesome title, by the way)



One moment. I just have to rebound from the astonishing number of peer-reviewed articles present in your post. In fact, It might take me decades to survey this treasure trove of bibliography.

I assume that your omission of my previous illustrations of *actual* examples of The Tragedy of the Commons - predicted by Rational Choice theory and very much real - is due to a lapse of memory alone, and not a deliberate attempt to evade the harsh realities of... reality?



This is the part where I should include the famous Kevin Spacey quote from Superman Returns, but I shall attempt to contain my silliness.

1. GGPViper makes claim that Rational Choice has a relevant empirical content
2. JakobVirgil makes counter-claim that Rational Choice has no relevant empirical content
3. GGPViper refers to Elinor Ostrom as an example of relevant empirical content (Isolated, this *is* in fact an appeal to authority)
4. JakobVirgil makes claim that Ostrom is not a Rational Choice author and makes claim that GGPViper has not read Ostrom (valid attack against appeal to authority)
5. GGPViper refers to "Governing the Commons" as evidence of having read Ostrom and that she is a Rational Choice author (A specific work, and thus not an appeal to authority)
6. JakobVirgil makes claim that Ostrom is not a Rational Choice author and makes claim that GGPViper has not read Ostrom. (Note the similarity with number 4)
7. GGPViper refers to specific passages in "Governing the Commons" as evidence of having read Ostrom and that she is a Rational Choice author and that Rational choice has a relevant empirical content
8. JakobVirgil - now facing a losing battle - decides to abandon serious discussion and engage in incoherent rants instead.



Look up (in my post, of course).

1) The tragedy of the commons is a weak example with a spate of counter examples.
(a lot of which are in the book you like to quote.)

2) The mathematical underpinnings of Game theory are faulty. Nash had a fiddly approach to the recursive problem in game theory.
3) The theory of human motivation and understanding of games held axiomatic in game theory
does not have a grounding in observed human behavior.
4) game theory does not have predictive ability Nash equalibriums are almost never met in real life interactions. including the hilarious case of the secretaries in the RAND building returning the result of cooperation as the most common strategy in the Prisoners Dilemma.
This was Nash's first and perhaps only escapade in experimental economics.

Game theory = bunk
rational choice is based on game theory and hence is bunk too.

funny thing is that game theory works really well for evolutionary biology.
just not for people. (this is cuz we ain't rational.)

So do you still win? .

Cool now do it for astrology.

I am relieved that I did not have to defend the work of Trivers as well.

Unless you define "rational" as "not affected by physical laws" I however fail to see how assumptions about human rationality put as much as a single dent in the use of game theory in evolutionary biology.

Unless you define "rational" as "not affected by physical laws" I however fail to see how assumptions about human rationality put as much as a single dent in the use of game theory in evolutionary biology.

I suspect that part of the problem some people have with game theory when applied to human interactions is an inability to deal with different goals. Game theory when applied to evolutionary biology has a predetermined goal for every organism, "survive and reproduce" (overly simplified I know).

When its applied to a human interaction, its very easy to attribute certain behaviors by actors as "irrational" instead of to actors pursuing different goals.

Except for the part where it is crap at actually predicting human behaviour.
But you keep forgetting that part.

Dawkins is fine as a biologist (except for his seemingly faith driven disbelief in path dependency.* ) it is just when he puts on his social theorist hat that he is out of his depth.

* understand it is nuanced and he has backed down a bit.

The Sociopath as a cheater evolutionary strategy work well in my mind.
analogous to the unflanged males in Pongo.

Yes a lot of people use it. (more use the bible another crap guide.)
Yes some highly acclaimed folks use it. (like the bible)
Yes governments use it to design policy (again the bible)

Any argument that does not address the efficacy of the use of Rational Choice as a predictive tool for human behaviour will be sneered at.

It is a theory of human behavior that fails in its purpose predicting human behavior.
It deserves a place in the dustbin of history with bloodletting, Freudian analysis and I ching.

Congrats on your win.

You might want to pay more attention to your own posts, JakobVirgil. Could it be that you yourself have confessed support to the use of game theory in evolutionary biology specifically concerning humans... perhaps in another thread?



5 cent question: Within which theoretical framework do you think the evolutionary cheater strategy is presented? And you even provided ammunition to my next argument with an analogy to similar behaviour in other Homininae (the Orangutan). Why does it make sense to differentiate between Homo Sapiens and other creatures at all? You might want to re-read Trivers...

My original psychopath reference was (Christopher J. Patrick (ed.) Handbook of Psychopathy, 2006: 563-565) by the way...



I'm not even going to bother to point out the logical fallacy of this argument...



Then why do you sneer? Does some sort of galactic constant (back of, Q!) prevent my numerous references to Governing the Commons from being transmitted through the Internet?



While your logic is lacking, your sportsmanship is admirable.

Are you familiar with the fallacy fallacy?

Humans evolved in a way that makes us irrational.
Obligate child-rearing , Bad kin discernment, the cultural co-evolution of the brain.

Maybe cuz Governing the Commons is not in anyway a proof of your point?

Show data supporting rational choice or shut up.

Well played, at least (If referring to the argument from fallacy). Now - assuming that you are referring to my dismissal of the Rational Choice/Bible connection - all you have to do is to prove a logical connection between the two... Please excuse me while I *dont* hold my breath, as you have demonstrated little (if any) ability to lift the burden of proof in previous posts...



I believe the burden of proof is on you, now. Hamilton, Trivers, Dawkins and Wilson are all on my side. Who are on your side? Gould & Lewontin?



I understand that it must be difficult for you to admit that you have misread the central work of your advisor... But you are turning into the very epitome of the No True Scotsman fallacy. If I quoted Governing the Commons in its entirety in this thread - from front to back - while pointing out its obvious foundation upon Rational choice and its empirical relevance - you would probably still dismiss my argument...

You have lost, JakobVirgil. The fact that you cannot even reply to my specific points suggests that having your back against the wall is eating into you spine...

Now you realize that stacking up experts is not really an arguement, right?
I could give a list of my own and we could play a game of who is the biggest moron for using the appeal to authority fallacy.
(so far you.)

You have not shown emperical or statistical evidence for rational choice you know this right?

Burden of proof (other relevant authors are Gary Miller, Xavier Sala-I-Martin, Robert Barro, Ernst Fehr and Bruno Frey):
Ostrom, Elinor - Governing The Commons
North, Douglass & Weingast, Barry - Constitutions and Commitments: The evolution of institutional governing public choice in seventeenth-century England
North, Douglass - Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
Weingast, Barry & Mark Moran - Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control: Regulatory Policymaking by the FTC.

You have been found lacking and to bring it back to the original point rational choice arguments against anarchist or egalitarian societies have no merit and ignore empirical data. There are scores of egalitarian societies (hunter-gatherers) on earth right now they have trouble competing with non egalitarian cultures but are quite stable on their own.

In fact arguably our species was egalitarian for most of its evolutionary life -we won't know for sure until my tardis is fixed- hence the Predisposition to fowl-up Nash's math.

If you could list your own experts, then why haven't you?

[Eager Expectation: I hope your opponent posts Pathologies of Rational Choice, Master. Self-defeating arguments are a beauty to behold]

By the way, I stack up references to actual peer-reviewed works. Are you implying that this is the *wrong* approach?





How quaint.

Let me add just two more (both statistical):

Robert Barro - Democracy and Growth
Xavier Sali-I-Martin - I Just Ran Four Million Regressions

The latter is mostly for the lulz, but you do display a remarkable ability to selectively disregard posts that do not confirm your world view, so what the hell...



If your best example of a functioning anarchist society is a hunter-gatherer society, then perhaps I have won this discussion long before it began. What a wonderful short lived experience in extreme poverty.

I make no claim to the contrary as to the historical social framework of humanity. This is also the central message of The Adapted Mind, although I have some reservations against its conclusions...

But the bottom line is: I have not been found lacking. Rational Choice does have merit and it is supported by empirical studies.

And once again, you have lost...

GGPViper and TM are the same person

same style of writing and trolling

Why do you fail for it JacobVirgil?

Robert Barro - Democracy and Growth - shows correlation between democracy and growth.
is Rational Choice democracy?

Xavier Sali-I-Martin - I Just Ran Four Million Regressions
is also not about rational choice but the correlates of economic growth.

Just wanted to see a good anarchy debate. People have been trying for hundreds of years, and I believe we're just on the edge of being able to try again, technologically and culturally speaking.

Now the question is, is it possible? Should we even try? Or would it just exponentially compound our problems, because humans can't reliably handle the responsibility of equality of freedom?

GGPViper and TM are the same person

same style of writing and trolling

Why do you fail for it JacobVirgil?

User accounts
--------------------
* Each user of WrongPlanet is only permitted to hold one user account unless given permission by the owner of WrongPlanet.net.
* Impersonating someone is not permitted.