What is this Paradox called? - Science, Math and Philosophy Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Science, Math, and Philosophy

What is this Paradox called?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3

11-04-2011 , 09:10 AM

Al Mirpuri

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5,485

Simply put: an action can be rational for the individual but irrational for the collective.

Eg, souls in heaven are given the choice of being born male or female. Each soul notices that because humans irrationally discriminate against females that it is best to be born male. If they all conclude this then we end up in a world full of men. Clearly, not the best outcome for the collective.

Is this Condurcet's Paradox or does it have some other name?

Quote

11-04-2011 , 09:44 AM

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Doesn't look a like a paradox to me but rather just another version of the Prisoner's dilemma. It's an artifact of game theory.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 09:44 AM

Tartufo

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 17,329

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Mirpuri

No, condorcet's is about voting. This is a multi-person prisoner's dilemma, also called Tragedy of the Commons.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 10:01 AM

BruceZ

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 11,877

This is related:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_Paradox

Quote

11-04-2011 , 10:51 AM

PairTheBoard

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 10,049

I described a problem here like this a while back which I called "The parasite problem"

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...roblem-264532/

There's a school of thought whereby we ought to consider the non-selfish decision to be "Super-Rational". This when the non-selfish decision, if adopted by everybody, produces greater benefits for everybody than the selfish decision adopted by everybody.

PairTheBoard

Quote

11-04-2011 , 10:56 AM

masque de Z

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 9,961

Its called capitalism.

And of course the concept of beneficial for the individual but not the group needs to be corrected to beneficial short term for the individual assuming not all select the same locally self serving path at the same time. Obviously what is a local short term benefit proves a global loss for both the individual and the group. This realization makes the above statement not a joke but a tragedy. In the end weak and strong, poor and rich all lose.

Last edited by masque de Z; 11-04-2011 at 11:02 AM.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 10:57 AM

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

It's the tragedy of the commons problem.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 11:19 AM

BruceZ

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 11,877

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CemLiSI5ox8

Quote

11-04-2011 , 01:15 PM

Snaaak

adept

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,071

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

It's the tragedy of the commons problem.

This, and is this even a paradox?

Quote

11-04-2011 , 01:29 PM

#10

jb9

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,147

I think it is only a paradox if you believe silly things (e.g., 'individuals left alone to act in their own self interest won't harm society').

Quote

11-04-2011 , 01:44 PM

#11

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,166

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb9

I think it is only a paradox if you believe silly things (e.g., 'individuals left alone to act in their own self interest won't harm society').

This fallacy needs a name.

Another fine example is if you take a measure to reduce crime and crime goes up then the measure didn't work.

In both cases the conclusion may be true but the reasoning means
you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 03:29 PM

#12

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaaak

This, and is this even a paradox?

Sure, because it's a common belief that people working in their own self interest will be best for the group. We obviously know that this is false, but most free-market thinkers don't.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 03:38 PM

#13

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,166

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Sure, because it's a common belief that people working in their own self interest will be best for the group. We obviously know that this is false, but most free-market thinkers don't.

lol

Two mistakes for the price of one. Good to have you back Durka.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 04:28 PM

#14

Tartufo

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 17,329

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Sure, because it's a common belief that people working in their own self interest will be best for the group. We obviously know that this is false, but most free-market thinkers don't.

Maybe the someone should post a link in the gary johnson thread to this one?

Quote

11-04-2011 , 05:46 PM

#15

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

Who gets credit for that idea? I have a feeling it was someone other than the guy who deserves it. Namely Moses.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 06:44 PM

#16

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

lol durka

Quote

11-04-2011 , 08:51 PM

#17

BrianTheMick

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,928

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

lol

Two mistakes for the price of one. Good to have you back Durka.

I'm feeling like being nice to Durka.

How about "silly notions of libertarianism leading to utopia assuming rational agents" doesn't work in real life.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 09:00 PM

#18

BrianTheMick

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,928

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Who gets credit for that idea? I have a feeling it was someone other than the guy who deserves it. Namely Moses.

This concept preceded Moses - it is baked in. Selfish and collective needs being in accordance with each other are a wonderful survival technique for a group made up of individuals.

Most social animals beat the crap out of those who take more than their fair share. And they give the largest share (slightly) to those who produce the most.

Quote

11-04-2011 , 10:06 PM

#19

nullspace

banned

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1,858

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Sure, because it's a common belief that people working in their own self interest will be best for the group. We obviously know that this is false, but most free-market thinkers don't.

But don't the clever free-market thinkers realize that although pursuing your own self-interest isn't always best, the free-market is a practical solution that gets things right most of the time and avoids the problems that arise when an organized strategy is implemented poorly (such an Soviet Russia).

Quote

11-05-2011 , 04:53 AM

#20

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,166

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick

I'm feeling like being nice to Durka.

How about "silly notions of libertarianism leading to utopia assuming rational agents" doesn't work in real life.

That's a wee bit better except I dont know of any libertarians who believe it would be utopia.

Its the 'it wont be utopia' type argument that is ridiculous and quite frankly bizarre from anyone who is vaguelly intelligent. Its polical claptrap aimed at the unthinking at best.

The slightly more defensible and on-topic, though still very silly fallacious argument, is about self-interest harming groups being a rebuttal of free market thinking.

Quote

11-05-2011 , 04:59 AM

#21

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,166

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Who gets credit for that idea? I have a feeling it was someone other than the guy who deserves it. Namely Moses.

I'd like credit for working it out for myself though I assume it occurs to most people.

Isn't it the thing that strikes you as immediately obvious that when people insist acting in our self-interest harms the group we should consider the possibility that not harming the group is in our self-interest so they are being silly (and shouldn't be allowed to vote)

Quote

11-05-2011 , 08:33 AM

#22

BrianTheMick

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,928

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

You don't live where I live. We are overrun here with people who think that Ayn Rand described the perfect society.

Quote:

The slightly more defensible and on-topic, though still very silly fallacious argument, is about self-interest harming groups being a rebuttal of free market thinking.

It is an argument for restraining choices to those that are not -ev for the group as a whole.

Quote

11-05-2011 , 08:49 AM

#23

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,166

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick

You don't live where I live. We are overrun here with people who think that Ayn Rand described the perfect society.

I dont think they mean utopian. Anyway if they do for some reason they never post in 2+2 which makes me doubt they do. In any case most free market thinkers believe in government and most of the few who are left are making a moral case - e.g. when discussing slavery I dont give a **** what's best for the group.

Quote:

It is an argument for restraining choices to those that are not -ev for the group as a whole.

Maybe but its it a good argument let alone one that sufficently counters other good arguments.

Quote

11-05-2011 , 09:24 AM

#24

BrianTheMick

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,928

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

You keep using the word "think." A completely curious word in that it describes something that very rarely exists.

Makes it rather difficult to argue with you, since you seem to believe that such "thinking" exists in spades.

Quote:

Maybe but its it a good argument let alone one that sufficently counters other good arguments.

I think you might be missing a word or two in your sentence...

Like most arguments regarding systems of people, it is just a small argument that needs to be taken into account to avoid making silly mistakes.

Quote

11-05-2011 , 10:29 AM

#25

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,166

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick

We were talking about thinkers.

Quote:

No think nonsense argument mistake people think silly

Quote

Page 1 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last