tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post4790791080954607160..comments2024-03-25T14:25:25.102+00:00Comments on Poetry as Socio-proctology: Is trolling euvoluntary?windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-91602385016631572562013-12-24T16:02:02.975+00:002013-12-24T16:02:02.975+00:00The link you posted doesn't work- this is it- ...The link you posted doesn't work- this is it- http://socioproctology.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/jappa-pallikathayil-why-i-should-have.html - I'm re-reading it and yes it is a bit of a yawn but I see no conflict with this post.<br />The context of 'impersonal' transactions suggests an 'open market'. Market makers quote their buying and selling price for any commodity and are bound by it. Anything which deviates from this aint about 'market norms' at all. That's all I was saying there.<br />One thing has changed- viz. reception of Binmore in the blogger community. He is making a stronger claim and it fails, in my view, because there is no co-operative game, just a representation- I did say that already. <br />The onus is on you to show that there's some new theorem which says this doesn't constitute a scandal for a sort of Munger-Binmore euvolunatry-repeated game Moral eqbm.<br />You say that you have known Second year students who understand Aumann equilbria as well as Morishima rational distribution as well as how this relates to Preference Revelation and Mechanism Design.<br />I don't believe you. An 18 or 19 year old would have to be pretty smart to know all that as well as how to apply it. windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-22470298967101702532013-12-24T15:25:26.448+00:002013-12-24T15:25:26.448+00:00Did you read the article you linked to? It has not...Did you read the article you linked to? It has nothing to do with what you are claiming- that is, if there is a claim there at all, I can't tell.<br />Go and re-read this post of yours- http://socioproctology.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/jappa-pallikathayil-why-i-should-have.html- I'm not saying it makes sense, but you appear to be saying that you accept Binmore's 'folk theorem'. Now you are saying something different- (or is it different? I can't tell. You may just be stringing words together at random)<br />The question I put to you- and I want you to think about it before rushing to answer- is why you think cooperative game theory comes 'unstuck' when it faces the problem Munger & Guzman have identified- viz. that of introducing a Rawlsian type euvolnutary rule.<br />I'm not asking you for a Mathematical proof- that would be far beyond your power- just an intuitive sketch. Munger may consider you as 'not just a troll' but unless there's something I'm severely missing, this blog post of yours does nothing to confirm his opinion.<br />Incidentally, I have taught at U.K Universities and Second year students do know about Aumann correlated equilibria and a lot more besides.<br />Stick to poetry, my dear troll. <br />IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-49366539879619069562013-12-24T14:31:07.964+00:002013-12-24T14:31:07.964+00:00Phenotypal capacitance contributes to robustness, ...Phenotypal capacitance contributes to robustness, and hence are called stabilizers, whereas Genotypal capacitance accumulates variance for evolvability. http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(09)00146-2<br />Binmore believes that Morality has evolved like Chomskian Universal Grammar. That is why, in my opinion, Capacitance is germane to his thesis. Now, Binmore's political philosophy is probably not very different from Mungers. Both are Math guys who turned Economists. So even if their approaches are different, there may be a commonality.<br />In the quotation you cite, there are two different ideas- one is Morishima (a colleague of Binmore's at the LSE, when I was there) on 'rational distribution' which uses shadow prices to establish what Munger might call an Euvoluntary benchmark, the other is Aumann on correlated equilibria (which is what is doing the heavy lifting in that sentence)<br />If your sophomores really have this range of knowledge, I must congratulate you. Here in the U.K, this is considered post-grad stuff.<br />I appreciate that my post isn't very clear and have tried to edit it to clarify matters.<br />windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-35274949000136950422013-12-24T13:28:58.116+00:002013-12-24T13:28:58.116+00:00Sheer nonsense. I don't think you understand w...Sheer nonsense. I don't think you understand what capacitance means.<br />You are trying two different approaches which share no commonality. It is a foolish attempt.<br /><br />You believe, and I quote, 'a notion of just price can be made rigorous with reference to the shadow vector of correlated equilibria in a repeated game such that all exigent circumstances get insured against- i.e. arbitrageurs operate in the market in a manner to equalize risk premiums and also all external effects, information asymmetries (and preference revelation problems) get 'internalised' in the Coasian sense by the co-evolution of Mechanism Design along with the Market. '<br />This isn't particularly meaningful- I'd expect to see it on a College sophomore paper- but I suppose it is consistent with Binmore's essential position.<br />What you written is nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-6096759505184235662013-12-24T11:45:53.817+00:002013-12-24T11:45:53.817+00:00It hurts coz it's true.
Personally, I blame Da...It hurts coz it's true.<br />Personally, I blame David Cameron- that boy aint right.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-52496893036573558052013-12-24T11:39:42.796+00:002013-12-24T11:39:42.796+00:00When I read the first paragraph, I assumed you wer...When I read the first paragraph, I assumed you were going to say that the troll is the least well off participant in an internet forum and that the difference principle dictates that everybody should come down to his level. I then expected you give provide an argument that 'lowest common denominator' discourse is actually what people would choose behind the veil of ignorance for some complicated reason involving Kolmogorov complexity or effectively computable functions or something of that sort.<br />It seems you missed some low hanging fruit yourself, you great big troll!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-90089813791233336242013-12-24T10:36:31.248+00:002013-12-24T10:36:31.248+00:00Fair cop, Guv. I was thinking of the Binmore-Schir...Fair cop, Guv. I was thinking of the Binmore-Schirrmacher brouhaha which I think could be resolved by saying Binmore thinks canalisation is 'euvoluntary' (to use Munger's euphonious coinage) and this has to do with Human Evolution; but Schirrmacherites could argue this does not matter because capacitance would be strategic and non-ergodic in this model, because selfish reasons are adduced in its support, and that whatever robustness the ESS displays is an expression of capacitance and driven by its dynamics.<br />I am not my own troll. What happened was I went to the pub and got chatting with a hot chick but then mixed up the rohypnol and viagra and ended up waking up under Blackfriars bridge in a condition similar to Ezra Pound's sailor who confessed on his deathbed to his son that '"I am not your fader but your moder," quod he, "Your fader was a rich merchant in Stambouli.'<br />It is my secret shame.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-40289520005191917972013-12-24T10:11:32.430+00:002013-12-24T10:11:32.430+00:00This is nonsense on stilts- 'A Binmore type (i...This is nonsense on stilts- 'A Binmore type (i.e. with no external coercion) 'repeated game' approach comes unstuck for a similar reason because there is no way of distinguishing pehnotypal 'canalisation' (which is in the core) from 'capacitance diversity' (which may not be and has high hysteresis) within the Evolutionary Stable Strategy.)'<br />Canalisation is about robustness to perturbation and is precisely captured by E.S.S. Obviously, there are non ergodic processes going on all the time- but that's precisely why canalisation gains salience. Non ergodic processes get dammed up as Capacitance and gain ergodicity through canalisation.<br />Actually, there are just too many things wrong with your sentence to fix.<br />You are your own troll.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com