By worse off I’m saying a small improvement in your new mating dance versus the old one won’t overcome a large decrease in the value of that mating dance.
It doesn’t have to equal a small improvement. It can also produce a larger improvement. The empiric fact that I know multiple guys for whom online dating produced a lot of value suggests that’s true.
. For instance lives of citizens are generally valued at $10 million (and foreigners near zero) for many policy decisions.
That’s true for some policy decisions made by bureaucrats. On the other hand it’s not true for a lot of decisions made by democratic parliaments.
There’s an old joke. A man asks if a woman will sleep with him for $10 million. She agrees. He then asks if she’ll sleep with him for $10. She scoffs “”What do you think I am!?”. He replies “we’vs already established what you are; now we’re just haggling over the price.”
The fact that you can theoretically buy a woman for a price in no way implies that that’s the dynamic of the average dating interaction.
You make mistakes when you model decision making that doesn’t use price as a criteria with a straight market dynamic.
I agree that certain types of items are not readily traded for other things. It’s hard to buy time with money for instance. But if things have value then things have a price. That price can be measured in dollars normally, but it can also be measured in time or enjoyment or any of a number of other metrics. I believe I’m simply using a more general definition of price and you’re using a stricter definition so the argument is mostly semantics.
Plenty of supply and demand models don’t use money as a criteria. Switching from dollars to minutes doesn’t change the dynamic. That the model is incomplete is true. But there’s no such thing as a complete model; that’s the nature of a model.
Are you aware of the phrase “sacred values” in decision theory? Paying money a person money can make them less likely to accept an offer?
But that isn’t even everything because a mating dance is more complex than simply providing enjoyment or time or any such metric.
I believe I’m simply using a more general definition of price and you’re using a stricter definition so the argument is mostly semantics.
I think that’s unlikely true given the unattributed Churchill quote that you used.
That the model is incomplete is true. But there’s no such thing as a complete model; that’s the nature of a model.
The problem isn’t that it’s incomplete but that it’s bad because it leads to various mistakes for a person who wants to make good dating decisions.
Don’t be a hedgehog.
I’m not sure how being unable to exchange sacred values for money has anything to do with exchanges of sacred values. I’ve already explicitly stated I’m not talking about exchanges of money. I also wasn’t aware I’d quoted Churchill. If you mean the old story, Churchhill didn’t originate it.
It doesn’t have to equal a small improvement. It can also produce a larger improvement. The empiric fact that I know multiple guys for whom online dating produced a lot of value suggests that’s true.
That’s true for some policy decisions made by bureaucrats. On the other hand it’s not true for a lot of decisions made by democratic parliaments.
The fact that you can theoretically buy a woman for a price in no way implies that that’s the dynamic of the average dating interaction.
You make mistakes when you model decision making that doesn’t use price as a criteria with a straight market dynamic.
In regards to price and modeling:
I agree that certain types of items are not readily traded for other things. It’s hard to buy time with money for instance. But if things have value then things have a price. That price can be measured in dollars normally, but it can also be measured in time or enjoyment or any of a number of other metrics. I believe I’m simply using a more general definition of price and you’re using a stricter definition so the argument is mostly semantics.
Plenty of supply and demand models don’t use money as a criteria. Switching from dollars to minutes doesn’t change the dynamic. That the model is incomplete is true. But there’s no such thing as a complete model; that’s the nature of a model.
Are you aware of the phrase “sacred values” in decision theory? Paying money a person money can make them less likely to accept an offer?
But that isn’t even everything because a mating dance is more complex than simply providing enjoyment or time or any such metric.
I think that’s unlikely true given the unattributed Churchill quote that you used.
The problem isn’t that it’s incomplete but that it’s bad because it leads to various mistakes for a person who wants to make good dating decisions. Don’t be a hedgehog.
I’m not sure how being unable to exchange sacred values for money has anything to do with exchanges of sacred values. I’ve already explicitly stated I’m not talking about exchanges of money. I also wasn’t aware I’d quoted Churchill. If you mean the old story, Churchhill didn’t originate it.