The use of shame to change income inequality (Through the Wormhole spoiler alert)

[Fenris]

@BrightNShiny

The OP states that the pot is doubled. You can talk to the OP about the magic extra dollar. It looks to me like you’re reading the OP wrong.

Looking back, you’re completely correct. I totally missed that part in the OP and I’m not sure how

Thanks

[Little_Nemo]

@OldGuy

But I’m best off (in terms of money received) in a system where I cheat and no one else does.

That’s my point. You’re basing your decision on the premise that you’re somehow independent of the system you’re in. You’re figuring that you can somehow have decision making power that’s different than what everyone else has - that their decisions are locked in place and your decision is free.

In the real world, that condition doesn’t exist. Everyone has equal autonomy.

So if you try to figure out “What’s the best decision for me to make assuming everyone else makes Decision A?” or “What’s the best decision for me to make assuming everyone else makes Decision B?” then you’ve already made an error in your thinking. It’s like trying to make a decision based on whether or not you’re feeling lucky. If you start with a false premise, you can’t reach a valid conclusion.

The correct logic is to assume everyone in the system has the same decision making power - which is a realistic assumption. And then ask “Which achieves better results: everyone making Decision A or everyone making Decision B?”

[Little_Nemo]

@BrightNShiny

No, what you are doing is talking past me and actually repeating a point I originally made, but acting like you are saying something different. And if you’re going to respond to my original post, you are going to have to stop using the term “rational” in some generic way, since I was using it in an economic sense. If you aren’t going to do that, then you aren’t dealing with what I actually wrote.

Here is a reasonable definition of rationality:

Now, if you don’t understand that, I’m happy to walk you through it. But when you use a term like “rational economists” in response to my original post in this thread, you make it very clear that you don’t actually understand the economic terms I was using. Now, you don’t have to do that type of economic analysis if you don’t want to, but I’m not going to argue against your misinterpretation of my post. If you don’t understand this type of economics, that’s fine, and I can explain in greater detail the point I made, if you are actually interested. But arguing against a construction of your own isn’t something I’m interested in doing, since it’s not going to lead anywhere and it’s not even the actual point I made.

Don’t be condescending. I am fully aware of the meaning of rationality in economic terms and that’s the way I have been using it.

It should be obvious I don’t need somebody to explain basic economic analysis to me if I already understand it enough to point out its shortcomings.

[BrightNShiny]

@Little_Nemo

Don’t be condescending. I am fully aware of the meaning of rationality in economic terms and that’s the way I have been using it.

It should be obvious I don’t need somebody to explain basic economic analysis to me if I already understand it enough to point out its shortcomings.

Yeah, I’m going to have to start being condescending at this point, because it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about. And on top of that, you have no interest in learning about it “Rational” in economics applies to individual actors in the market. That’s baked into the definition. You are using the term “rational” to mean something more like “logical.” The term “rational economists” makes no sense in the context of my original post. If you aren’t going to try to get out of your own ignorance, that’s not anybody’s problem but your own.

[BrightNShiny]

Or, you know what? Give me a definition of “rational economist” that comports with the definition of rationality I gave you. Let’s see if we can make sense of what you think you’re saying. But keep this in mind:

The “rationality” described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. Typically, “rationality” means “sane” or “in a thoughtful clear-headed manner,.” Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of “rationality” simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.

[Omar_Little]

I’m curious if the Through the Wormhole episode described those that only donated a small sum, as cheaters. Or was that a label developed by the OP? Sounds like the scenario set up on the television show was a game of some sort, and with all games even if there aren’t clear objectives, participants will determine their own objective, which in this case sounds like was to collect the most money. If there weren’t any defined rules on how to do this, how can someone cheat.

And then for someone to extrapolate game playing to real life where there are laws and morals, etc., is a bit of a stretch.

Premise fail.