The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Spring [chat]
Shivahn
Unaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
Unaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
It's finally spring!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUw4Qh9uFK8
In celebration of the fact that the cherry blossoms have bloomed, and it's no longer snowing like it was during actual spring break.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUw4Qh9uFK8In celebration of the fact that the cherry blossoms have bloomed, and it's no longer snowing like it was during actual spring break.
+6
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Is this a bio vs econ post?
In evo bio, "fitness" can reduce behavioral phenomena down to a first-order utility: whatever increases the growth rate of a population expressing a certain phenotype. However, properly applied, evo bio cannot explain any behavioral preferences that do not affect population growth. Evo bio can't explain why people like black and red cars more than brown and orange. Some people really wish this weren't the case (evo psych) but I'm happy to tell them that they're silly and wrong.
In econ, "utility" just comes to rest on, "well, people like it." Econ has revealed preferences and utility curves, but econ also cannot explain any first-order behavioral preferences at all. Econ can tell us that people like Z because it gets them more Y, and they like Y because it gets them more X, but it can't explain why people like X. Econ can't explain why people like black and red cars more than brown and orange.
But ultimately who has a better handle on these things? The biologist. More specifically, the neuropsychologist. We can identify how certain preferences are biologically related to other preferences that can be modeled in terms of fitness. It's not a stretch to theorize that a preference for sweet foods led beneficially to higher caloric intake in calorie-constrained environments, for instance.
What does that mean? If the game is "who is better at explaining individual behaviors," Shivahn dunks on you all.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
and rain
lots of rain
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Gooey, when playing Demon, just ask yourself "What would Michael Weston do?"
NBA Playoffs race is tense
GET RIGGITY RIGGITY WRECKED SON
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay, season 2 is this fall!
Because I'm pretty sure I haven't bookmarked any of the threads I'm seeing as bookmarked.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
ah no, I was making a point about @arch's remark that the animal behaviour course admonishes students to only reason marginally
the reason is, more or less, the underlying core of constrained maximization. This is the base of both contemporary econ and evo reasoning. It does so happen that econ has (approximately speaking) a concrete budget curve (price, quantities, and their total budget are all real quantities) but the nature of the constraint on the pursuit of reproductive success is unclear. Obviously it's constrained, but exactly how is difficult to quantify. Therefore: no reasoning about absolute levels, only marginal changes. You would need a theory of the constraint to motivate a totalist theory of animal behaviour founded on the fitness maximization. In its absence, all you can do is reason about marginal contributions of each behaviour, or possibly even just incremental amounts of each behaviour
I am *really* excited to play D:tD.
I just have a weird difficulty with the suspension of disbelief when it comes to naming a character. To me it's something that's difficult to take seriously. I've played V:tM and whatnot, so it's tough to not poke fun at those tropes/stereotypes.
after all, my most famous d&d character is literally named "Gooey the Barbarian"
i promise i will be on my best behavior for your game!
I love rain
You are still missing my fundamental point (and the good takeaway from graeber), that these sorts of economic transaction arguments (whatever sort of reasoning you use behind them) are still fundamentally flawed, and really don't explain as much about behavior specifically, and nature generally, as we like to pretend they do
Ninety five percent of the time that elapsed was me finding a website that had pictures to illustrate neuroscientific points.
But that's not ready so you all get gay marriage instead.
It's been sunny here lately, though.
and i hope morty loves me
i want to put my arms around him
and feel him inside me
Shit dogg no. R&M got you covered. There's one more broh!
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
There are a ton of empirical studies that undermine the hypothesis
The takeaway isn't "evolutionary biologists shouldn't use marginal reasoning", it's "maybe these cost-benefit exchange and constraint models are not really that good"
You have to pepper 60% of your sentences with his name.
But saying "a different kind of economic modeling, the correct kind, would fix it" seems to be missing the forest for the trees
or adventure time
Snowball.
Gooey
Lemme tell you Gooey
You need to *URP* correct this.
At least watch the Inception episode, Gooey. It's like the second episode.
I mean, it can kill you, yes.
Whether you class it as OD or not is a long philosophical argument, probably.
sweating my balls off here
I blame capitalism. :P
No such thing as too much biltong.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious