economic proof that at some point it is desirable to die

Started by thewake, October 19, 2015, 03:48:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

thewake

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2015, 01:38:44 PM
Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 04:52:07 AM

A shame you hate me.

It was your goal.

No it wasn't.

But if we shall play the game of trying to guess someone else's motives, maybe it was your goal to find something about me to hate. :P

Quote
Quote
Other than being a bit upset I might get banned for what I probably shouldn't have posted in the first place, I rather like everyone here.

You aren't going to get banned for being a useless dick.  However, if you keep pestering me in PM about shit I wrote in 2011 or what medications I am on, or anything other than admin issues, you will be.

:oops:
"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
--H. L. Mencken

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 05:25:18 PM

No it wasn't.

But if we shall play the game of trying to guess someone else's motives, maybe it was your goal to find something about me to hate. :P


1.  Yes it was.  It was an attempt to humiliate.  What did you expect that to result in?  It's how the universe works.  Action/reaction.  What other outcome could you have possibly been hoping for?

2.  I never needed to find a reason.  There's a certain type that marches right up and hands me a reason.  Like, you know, you.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Meunster

Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 05:31:42 AM
QuoteI see now that the kooks do indeed simply come up out the woodwork and make a beeline.

who here isn't a kook? I've been registered on this forum less than a month and haven't found a single poster that didn't fit that description.

These guys aren't kooks, maybe a bit fringy but they're all normal.
Poe's law ;)

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 04:52:07 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2015, 02:57:25 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2015, 12:58:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 22, 2015, 08:45:40 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 22, 2015, 08:38:31 PM

Quotebut of course my new friend Rog (if I can call you Rog?)

Oh FFS.  :roll:

It never ends.  One special snowflake after another.

Why do they ALL want to call you Rog? I've known you for going on nine years and I have NEVER had the urge to call you Rog.

It's a stupid fucking dominance game.  Implied familiarity implying contempt implying superiority on his part.

It accomplished one of his intentions, though.  I went straight to hating him.  As far as feelings of superiority, I could give a shit less if he feels superior.  He's a libertarian.

:lulz:

> :lulz:

the face of an accomplished psychoanalyst, able to pick out dominance complexes at the drop of a hat

He's right though. Assuming excessive familiarity via a disingenuous endearment or nickname is a classic power play. It's a shame you lack the self-awareness to recognize when you're exhibiting textbook passive-aggressive behaviors.

And by textbook, I mean that I finished a psychology BS a few months ago, and that is literally in the textbooks.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 05:31:42 AM
QuoteI see now that the kooks do indeed simply come up out the woodwork and make a beeline.

who here isn't a kook? I've been registered on this forum less than a month and haven't found a single poster that didn't fit that description.

I think you're projecting, given that for the most part we're all pretty socially functional and/or high-achieving.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Pæs

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2015, 09:40:01 PM
And by textbook, I mean that I finished a psychology BS a few months ago, and that is literally in the textbooks.
:lol:

thewake

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2015, 09:40:01 PM


He's right though. Assuming excessive familiarity via a disingenuous endearment or nickname is a classic power play. It's a shame you lack the self-awareness to recognize when you're exhibiting textbook passive-aggressive behaviors.

And by textbook, I mean that I finished a psychology BS a few months ago, and that is literally in the textbooks.

and here all this time I thought I was just being a plain old asshole.
"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
--H. L. Mencken

The Wizard Joseph

Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 05:31:22 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on October 24, 2015, 04:53:39 AM
It's not even clever.

My cleverness is really hit-and-miss to be honest. One of my design flaws.

Oh now I remember what I wanted to ask you!

Do you consider yourself to be the product of some design? What I mean is do you think that there's a God or some sort of inherent purpose to your being?

This is critical to your idea here. If purpose is inherent then each and every breath serves it and is of value sufficient to heavily skew your "formula". If there's a God then the value of even your subjectively highest and lowest rates of "ROI" for various presumed "costs" of living are of no real impact as your existence serves the puropses of such a maker. See the book of Job for further illustration. Really.

If neither of those assertions reflect reality then the value of even one more breath approaches infinite and so will perpetually be higher than the "costs" and worth striving for and even perhaps sacrificing for the good of the group as a whole.

So upon what basis would you judge the value of a person's life?
You can't get out backward.  You have to go forward to go back.. better press on! - Willie Wonka, PBUH

Life can be seen as a game with no reset button, no extra lives, and if the power goes out there is no restarting.  If that's all you see life as you are not long for this world, and never will get it.

"Ayn Rand never swung a hammer in her life and had serious dominance issues" - The Fountainhead

"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation."
- Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality :lulz:

"You program the controller to do the thing, only it doesn't do the thing.  It does something else entirely, or nothing at all.  It's like voting."
- Billy, Aug 21st, 2019

"It's not even chaos anymore. It's BANAL."
- Doktor Hamish Howl

thewake

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on October 24, 2015, 11:58:44 PM

Oh now I remember what I wanted to ask you!

Do you consider yourself to be the product of some design? What I mean is do you think that there's a God or some sort of inherent purpose to your being?

I consider myself an agnostic soft/weak atheist. I don't know if there's a God or inherent purpose, I don't believe one way or the other.

QuoteThis is critical to your idea here. If purpose is inherent then each and every breath serves it and is of value sufficient to heavily skew your "formula". If there's a God then the value of even your subjectively highest and lowest rates of "ROI" for various presumed "costs" of living are of no real impact as your existence serves the puropses of such a maker. See the book of Job for further illustration. Really.

If neither of those assertions reflect reality then the value of even one more breath approaches infinite and so will perpetually be higher than the "costs" and worth striving for and even perhaps sacrificing for the good of the group as a whole.

So upon what basis would you judge the value of a person's life?

Fuck, so I think I see where some misunderstanding might be happening here.

The utility on the original graph is the utility experienced by the person we're theoretically analyzing. It's not about anyone else's valuation's of how much their life is worth. In layman's terms, I'm saying at some point it's more bad than good to keep living from the perspective of the individual doing the living, so they will cease to live. Although, if the ceasing to live requires suicide, I did leave out of my analysis that suicide is rather unpleasant, so that's a pretty big problem with it. 

I'm operating under the paradigm of the subjective theory of value. Economics has largely (barring some Marxist holdouts) adopted subjective value as its theory of value. Instead of saying that there is a value separate from individual people that determines price and whatnot, economists have come to the consensus that each person values things differently and it's their coming together and trading toward equilibrium that determines prices. You and I, we value things differently. I might pay as much as 50 bucks for a blowjob from an ugly hooker but the most you'll pay is 20. Economic value seems to be subjective.

Of course, if there is some standard of objective value like a God, you're possibly correct. Unless that God allows for subjective valuations of human life to exist.

Asking me on what basis I would judge the value of someone's life is a bit different from the graph I made, but I'll bite. I don't know, exactly. That's a pretty complex issue. For most people, I would kill them if they tried to kill me. So I guess you could say, in a lot of cases value(me)>value(murderous person).  But I like to think I'd be nice enough to throw myself in front of a bus to save a toddler from getting ran over, so value(random toddler)>value(me), at least provisonally. I'm probably too much of a chicken to actually do it, so there's a good probability that value(me)>value(random toddler).

I have a feeling I'm not quite answering what you want me to, though.
"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
--H. L. Mencken

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 11:32:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2015, 09:40:01 PM


He's right though. Assuming excessive familiarity via a disingenuous endearment or nickname is a classic power play. It's a shame you lack the self-awareness to recognize when you're exhibiting textbook passive-aggressive behaviors.

And by textbook, I mean that I finished a psychology BS a few months ago, and that is literally in the textbooks.

and here all this time I thought I was just being a plain old asshole.

Don't worry, you are. Most assholes are pretty stereotypical. It takes a bit of cleverness to be an original asshole.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: thewake on October 25, 2015, 12:40:31 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on October 24, 2015, 11:58:44 PM

Oh now I remember what I wanted to ask you!

Do you consider yourself to be the product of some design? What I mean is do you think that there's a God or some sort of inherent purpose to your being?

I consider myself an agnostic soft/weak atheist. I don't know if there's a God or inherent purpose, I don't believe one way or the other.

QuoteThis is critical to your idea here. If purpose is inherent then each and every breath serves it and is of value sufficient to heavily skew your "formula". If there's a God then the value of even your subjectively highest and lowest rates of "ROI" for various presumed "costs" of living are of no real impact as your existence serves the puropses of such a maker. See the book of Job for further illustration. Really.

If neither of those assertions reflect reality then the value of even one more breath approaches infinite and so will perpetually be higher than the "costs" and worth striving for and even perhaps sacrificing for the good of the group as a whole.

So upon what basis would you judge the value of a person's life?

Fuck, so I think I see where some misunderstanding might be happening here.

The utility on the original graph is the utility experienced by the person we're theoretically analyzing. It's not about anyone else's valuation's of how much their life is worth. In layman's terms, I'm saying at some point it's more bad than good to keep living from the perspective of the individual doing the living, so they will cease to live. Although, if the ceasing to live requires suicide, I did leave out of my analysis that suicide is rather unpleasant, so that's a pretty big problem with it. 

I'm operating under the paradigm of the subjective theory of value. Economics has largely (barring some Marxist holdouts) adopted subjective value as its theory of value. Instead of saying that there is a value separate from individual people that determines price and whatnot, economists have come to the consensus that each person values things differently and it's their coming together and trading toward equilibrium that determines prices. You and I, we value things differently. I might pay as much as 50 bucks for a blowjob from an ugly hooker but the most you'll pay is 20. Economic value seems to be subjective.

Of course, if there is some standard of objective value like a God, you're possibly correct. Unless that God allows for subjective valuations of human life to exist.

Asking me on what basis I would judge the value of someone's life is a bit different from the graph I made, but I'll bite. I don't know, exactly. That's a pretty complex issue. For most people, I would kill them if they tried to kill me. So I guess you could say, in a lot of cases value(me)>value(murderous person).  But I like to think I'd be nice enough to throw myself in front of a bus to save a toddler from getting ran over, so value(random toddler)>value(me), at least provisonally. I'm probably too much of a chicken to actually do it, so there's a good probability that value(me)>value(random toddler).

I have a feeling I'm not quite answering what you want me to, though.

You should have just shortened this to "I'm not basing it on anything, just pulling shit out of my ass".
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 25, 2015, 01:39:54 AM
Quote from: thewake on October 24, 2015, 11:32:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2015, 09:40:01 PM


He's right though. Assuming excessive familiarity via a disingenuous endearment or nickname is a classic power play. It's a shame you lack the self-awareness to recognize when you're exhibiting textbook passive-aggressive behaviors.

And by textbook, I mean that I finished a psychology BS a few months ago, and that is literally in the textbooks.

and here all this time I thought I was just being a plain old asshole.

Don't worry, you are. Most assholes are pretty stereotypical. It takes a bit of cleverness to be an original asshole.

Mostly, it takes getting YOUR OWN weird on, instead of taking the Official Conspiracy™ brand "weirdness".  Thewake isn't a stupid guy, but he IS lazy, if he thinks jabbering economics and libertarianism is in any way off the beaten track.  It's a 40 year old joke, and it wasn't funny or particularly strange when it was new.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.