To say "utility comes from... genes" is to attempt to ground economics in biology. But economics is explicitly *not* grounded on biology -- which is the whole point of this Trivers' talk. https://twitter.com/UtilaTheEcon/status/1121181648085667840 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
-
Replying to @LoCtrl
Perhaps, but I don't see the relevance. It's supposed to be a descriptive theory of intentional action (human or otherwise).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @metapotat
It's quite fine as a theory by itself. The problem is that the entire "raison d'etre" of that theory is to define a measure that could be maximized.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @metapotat
Let me rephrase: that's not how it always gets used now. Your quarrel seems to be with crude utilitarians, not economists. (Which often overlap, I know)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I was under the impression that what was at stake was the theoretical grounding of econ, not how it gets misused. This is a few steps back from the Trivers clip.
-
-
Replying to @metapotat
A. S. Retweeted A. S.
There is a grounding problem as well.https://twitter.com/Locus_of_Ctrl/status/1121257826259595270 …
A. S. added,
A. S. @LoCtrlReplying to @LoCtrl @C_Harwick and 2 othersBut it is also a failure from a broader philosophical standpoint. In retrospect, the man who is about to end his life because all his desires where satisfied probably does not value the things he used to value anymore. In which case -- where is utility?0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.