First off, you said it was unstable, which means there would have to be positive feedback to make it UN-stable.
You don’t need a positive feedback to have instability.
Secondly, it seems to me that there is a source of negative feedback in that if people want to be able to express stronger preferences themselves, they might tolerate stronger preferences expressed from others.
Which means that there is an incentive to overstate preferences.
You don’t need a positive feedback to have instability.
Yes you do. Like, rigid pendulum at the top of its swing, F = +kx. That’s positive feedback. I suppose you can get around this requirement with discrete timesteps or other hackery, but classically speaking positive feedback <-> instability.
Which means that there is an incentive to overstate preferences.
… differentially so, from a starting point of understated preferences, so that’s a correcting change.
Okay, so that’s the definition of ‘unstable’ you were using. You’ve now taken care of the nitpick and left the main thrust of the argument unaddressed.
You don’t need a positive feedback to have instability.
Which means that there is an incentive to overstate preferences.
Yes you do. Like, rigid pendulum at the top of its swing, F = +kx. That’s positive feedback. I suppose you can get around this requirement with discrete timesteps or other hackery, but classically speaking positive feedback <-> instability.
… differentially so, from a starting point of understated preferences, so that’s a correcting change.
an unbiased random walk sufficies.
Okay, so that’s the definition of ‘unstable’ you were using. You’ve now taken care of the nitpick and left the main thrust of the argument unaddressed.
(edited for spelling)
Can you rephrase the the main thrust of the argument?
All right. To keep it from ending up at the leaf of this back-and-forth, I’ll edit-to-add it earlier on.