But I’d still like if they noticed that the literal words say something very different than their interpretation.
I think most people most of the time don’t particularly pay attention to what the literal words say. Sometimes that’s a serious failing. It can bite you pretty hard if the words were written with careful attention to the literal meaning and you’re trying to get their consequences right. But when (as, I think, in this case) that’s not how the words got the way they did, I find it hard to be greatly bothered when people attend to the underlying meaning rather than the strict literal meaning.
Why are you pretty sure of this?
I’m not sure I can give much of an answer to that. Handwavily: because that sort of opinion seems both (1) an opinion Pratchett might plausibly have had and (2) one that might plausibly have led him to write what he did, whereas e.g. the literal reading that you call “level 3” in your earlier post does a bit better on #2 but to my mind much worse on #1.
And, do you mean [...]
I mean the definition at the start of the Wikipedia article. And I think
that definition doesn’t attempt to nail the theory down as specifically explaining “why the rich are rich” or “why the poor stay poor”; I think G.S.W. is offering not a different definition of “boots theory” from Wikipedia’s but a different view from the literal one of what phenomena the (same) theory is explaining
the same goes for “why being poor sucks so badly”
“buying in bulk” is related but I don’t find it plausible that either Pratchett or Vimes had that specifically in mind since the single example Vimes gives is of something that isn’t buying in bulk—but the idea “if you can afford to spend more then you can spend less in the long run” covers both buying in bulk and buying higher-quality items so this is definitely part of the same “vague cluster”
Ericf’s thing about assets versus income has some relationship to what I take Vimes/Pratchett to have been saying but I think that if Vimes/Pratchett had been thinking specifically of that then again Vimes would have picked a different example (something like Sybil never needing to buy furniture because she has a house full of high-quality furniture that’s been in the family for centuries, perhaps)
DirectedEvolution’s take isn’t really (I think) disagreeing about what Vimes’s theory says, he’s just saying that it’s stupid and so Pratchett can’t really believe anything like it is right. (I think that even if that’s so Vimes’s theory is still one of “socioeconomic unfairness” and if Pratchett is being ironic in using those words it’s not because they misrepresent what Vimes is thinking.) I don’t have very strong opinions as to how good a theory Pratchett actually thought it was, but I think it’s unlikely that he thought it as bad as DE does.
jimrandomh’s generalization doesn’t purport to be what either Vimes or Pratchett meant, I think. He’s proposing a Generalized Boots Theory for which something like your “level 3” might be true.
I’m not sure whether gbear605 is actually saying that Vimes or Pratchett really meant his (different) Generalized Boots Theory—his literal words do imply that, but just as with Pratchett himself I question whether he would endorse that if pushed—but this too seems like a reasonable generalization of the Vimes/Pratchett theory
so, broadly, yes I think most of these are in the same “vague cluster”; for the most part I wouldn’t myself endorse saying “boots theory is …” about them but doing so doesn’t seem entirely perverse to me.
When it’s used today, it’s used to explain an economic phenomenon [...] If it does badly at that, which I think it does [...]
I’m not sure what explanation of what economic phenomenon you’re saying “boots theory” is today used to mean. Your examples suggest that in fact it’s used in a wide variety of ways to describe and/or explain a wide variety of things.
Your earlier article (unlike this one) seems mostly to be claiming that the theory is generally offered as an account of why rich people are rich. I agree that it isn’t in fact a good account of that. I am not at all persuaded that people talking about “boots theory” commonly mean to claim that it is.
This article (unlike the earlier one) seems mostly to be pointing out that people use the term in a wide variety of ways—mostly not claiming that being able to buy better-quality stuff is why rich people are rich. (Indeed, above you suggest that they haven’t even noticed that interpretation of the theory, which is pretty much opposite to the position in your earlier post,) I haven’t myself made any serious attempt to survey how the term is used in practice. It may well be as varied as you say. My purely-handwavy-anecdotal impression is that most uses of the term are in the “vague cluster” that can be decently described with the words at the start of the Wikipedia article, and (like you, IIUC) I think that many such uses—corresponding to your “level 1″ or less frequently your “level 2”—are saying something that’s fairly clearly true.
I think it’s very reasonable not to be greatly bothered by this.
I do think it matters a little bit. If people are talking about “boots theory” and don’t mean the same thing, they’re going to communicate less well than if they unpack their definitions.
But I absolutely think of this as a hobby horse of mine. I do fully recommend that people avoid using the term “boots theory”, because it’s unclear. But I’m not trying to recruit people into a crusade against it.
I’m not sure what explanation of what economic phenomenon you’re saying “boots theory” is today used to mean.
I mean that there’s no single economic phenominon it’s today used to explain. When people talk about “boots theory”, it’s not clear what they mean, and that’s a problem when they’re trying to explain something.
Your earlier article (unlike this one) seems mostly to be claiming that the theory is generally offered as an account of why rich people are rich.
Ah, that wasn’t my intent. My earlier article was claiming (among other things) that the theory as written is an account of why rich people are rich, whether or not people offer it as that. It didn’t take a strong position on how people do in fact offer it; in this article I’ve looked at that question in more detail.
I think most people most of the time don’t particularly pay attention to what the literal words say. Sometimes that’s a serious failing. It can bite you pretty hard if the words were written with careful attention to the literal meaning and you’re trying to get their consequences right. But when (as, I think, in this case) that’s not how the words got the way they did, I find it hard to be greatly bothered when people attend to the underlying meaning rather than the strict literal meaning.
I’m not sure I can give much of an answer to that. Handwavily: because that sort of opinion seems both (1) an opinion Pratchett might plausibly have had and (2) one that might plausibly have led him to write what he did, whereas e.g. the literal reading that you call “level 3” in your earlier post does a bit better on #2 but to my mind much worse on #1.
I mean the definition at the start of the Wikipedia article. And I think
that definition doesn’t attempt to nail the theory down as specifically explaining “why the rich are rich” or “why the poor stay poor”; I think G.S.W. is offering not a different definition of “boots theory” from Wikipedia’s but a different view from the literal one of what phenomena the (same) theory is explaining
the same goes for “why being poor sucks so badly”
“buying in bulk” is related but I don’t find it plausible that either Pratchett or Vimes had that specifically in mind since the single example Vimes gives is of something that isn’t buying in bulk—but the idea “if you can afford to spend more then you can spend less in the long run” covers both buying in bulk and buying higher-quality items so this is definitely part of the same “vague cluster”
Ericf’s thing about assets versus income has some relationship to what I take Vimes/Pratchett to have been saying but I think that if Vimes/Pratchett had been thinking specifically of that then again Vimes would have picked a different example (something like Sybil never needing to buy furniture because she has a house full of high-quality furniture that’s been in the family for centuries, perhaps)
DirectedEvolution’s take isn’t really (I think) disagreeing about what Vimes’s theory says, he’s just saying that it’s stupid and so Pratchett can’t really believe anything like it is right. (I think that even if that’s so Vimes’s theory is still one of “socioeconomic unfairness” and if Pratchett is being ironic in using those words it’s not because they misrepresent what Vimes is thinking.) I don’t have very strong opinions as to how good a theory Pratchett actually thought it was, but I think it’s unlikely that he thought it as bad as DE does.
jimrandomh’s generalization doesn’t purport to be what either Vimes or Pratchett meant, I think. He’s proposing a Generalized Boots Theory for which something like your “level 3” might be true.
I’m not sure whether gbear605 is actually saying that Vimes or Pratchett really meant his (different) Generalized Boots Theory—his literal words do imply that, but just as with Pratchett himself I question whether he would endorse that if pushed—but this too seems like a reasonable generalization of the Vimes/Pratchett theory
so, broadly, yes I think most of these are in the same “vague cluster”; for the most part I wouldn’t myself endorse saying “boots theory is …” about them but doing so doesn’t seem entirely perverse to me.
I’m not sure what explanation of what economic phenomenon you’re saying “boots theory” is today used to mean. Your examples suggest that in fact it’s used in a wide variety of ways to describe and/or explain a wide variety of things.
Your earlier article (unlike this one) seems mostly to be claiming that the theory is generally offered as an account of why rich people are rich. I agree that it isn’t in fact a good account of that. I am not at all persuaded that people talking about “boots theory” commonly mean to claim that it is.
This article (unlike the earlier one) seems mostly to be pointing out that people use the term in a wide variety of ways—mostly not claiming that being able to buy better-quality stuff is why rich people are rich. (Indeed, above you suggest that they haven’t even noticed that interpretation of the theory, which is pretty much opposite to the position in your earlier post,) I haven’t myself made any serious attempt to survey how the term is used in practice. It may well be as varied as you say. My purely-handwavy-anecdotal impression is that most uses of the term are in the “vague cluster” that can be decently described with the words at the start of the Wikipedia article, and (like you, IIUC) I think that many such uses—corresponding to your “level 1″ or less frequently your “level 2”—are saying something that’s fairly clearly true.
I think it’s very reasonable not to be greatly bothered by this.
I do think it matters a little bit. If people are talking about “boots theory” and don’t mean the same thing, they’re going to communicate less well than if they unpack their definitions.
But I absolutely think of this as a hobby horse of mine. I do fully recommend that people avoid using the term “boots theory”, because it’s unclear. But I’m not trying to recruit people into a crusade against it.
I mean that there’s no single economic phenominon it’s today used to explain. When people talk about “boots theory”, it’s not clear what they mean, and that’s a problem when they’re trying to explain something.
Ah, that wasn’t my intent. My earlier article was claiming (among other things) that the theory as written is an account of why rich people are rich, whether or not people offer it as that. It didn’t take a strong position on how people do in fact offer it; in this article I’ve looked at that question in more detail.