"Mises insisted that the logical structure of human minds is the same for everybody."
First off, one cannot simply jump to the conclusion that everybody has the same logical structure to their mind without proof of such... especially when one plans on basing their entire theory of economics on this shaky conclusion.
Secondly, how many people do you know who are illogical? I happen to know quite a lot. Logic, much like mathematics and language, is a learned behaviour. This is evident by the fact that there's a fairly hefty list of logical fallacies that most people fall prey too when attempting simple logic. Everything from circular reasoning to argument from authority. Mises could have just as easily looked around and said "Well the linguistic structure of people's minds is the same for everybody" because everybody around him spoke the same language.... but this would have also been a false premise because language is obviously learned, and if you go to a different locale, different languages are spoken. Unfortunately, it seems that logic is significantly less important in our day to day lives than language is, because it's something that's sorely lacking in a significant chunk of the population. Either way, as I've stated, basing the entire premise of your economic system on the shaky foundation of "I think all people are like X" without proof.... is setting yourself up for a fall.... it's academically laughable, and it's highly illogical.
When mises says "rational" or "logical" he means purposeful. By rational or logical, you mean optimal. They are different meanings.
Either way, as I've stated, basing the entire premise of your economic system on the shaky foundation of "I think all people are like X" without proof.... is setting yourself up for a fall.... it's academically laughable, and it's highly illogical.
You are completely right! Good thing Mises does no such thing.
Again, he's not showing any proof of his statement. You can theorize that human beings all have the same "logical structure" to their minds, but without proof of such a statement, you're on shaky ground when building an economic theory based on such a claim. I'll use an analogy for you: If I made a claim that all people liked chocolate (because everyone I'd observed liked chocolate), and I based an otherwise flawless economic theory on this axiom.... a theory, I should add, that would fix all the world's economic problems if it worked as I'd theorized, but would cause countless more problems if it didn't.... one could claim that my theory was flawless all they wanted to, but when it turned out that not everyone did like chocolate, the theory would fall to pieces..... because the very philosophical axiom I based it on was the presumption that everyone liked chocolate. This is what Mises has done: He's taken an unproven axiom and based his entire theory around it. If the comment about the nature of the human mind was simply an aside, and not central to his economic theory, then it would be forgiveable as it would not impact his theory at all.... but this statement that I've pointed out as a bare assertion, is the very core of his entire economic theory. See the problem now?
Minds all have the same structure in that action is purposeful. It is fundamentally different from whether someone likes chocolate.
I think what Mises is saying is that the logic of human action is universal: people act to achieve their ends.
This doesn't imply that every human brain is physically the same, but that they function in the same manner.
^ ^ ^ ^ Sieben beat me to it.
Sieben: Minds all have the same structure in that action is purposeful. It is fundamentally different from whether someone likes chocolate.
scineram:But not every action is purposeful. I don't cough because I want to achieve something.
The distinctive and crucial feature in the study of man is the concept of action. Human action is defined simply as purposeful behavior. It is therefore sharply distinguishable from those observed movements which, from the point of view of man, are not purposeful. These include all the observed movements of inorganic matter and those types of human behavior that are purely reflex, that are simply involuntary responses to certain stimuli. Human action, on the other hand, can be meaningfully interpreted by other men, for it is governed by a certain purpose that the actor has in view.[2] The purpose of a man’s act is his end; the desire to achieve this end is the man’s motive for instituting the action.
Yes, the bolded part is wrong.
Do you not act purposefully? Was the purpose of your post not to get your opinion across?
Of course, certain assumptions are necessary to turn purposeful action into economic theory, namely that other humans act purposefully, which can never be known. One can only know their own mind. However, this is a very reasonable assumption and is hardly less reasonable than assumptions necessary for the natural sciences.
aderwent: I'll use an analogy for you: If I made a claim that all people liked chocolate (because everyone I'd observed liked chocolate), and I based an otherwise flawless economic theory on this axiom.... a theory, I should add, that would fix all the world's economic problems if it worked as I'd theorized, but would cause countless more problems if it didn't.... one could claim that my theory was flawless all they wanted to, but when it turned out that not everyone did like chocolate, the theory would fall to pieces..... because the very philosophical axiom I based it on was the presumption that everyone liked chocolate.
I'll use an analogy for you: If I made a claim that all people liked chocolate (because everyone I'd observed liked chocolate), and I based an otherwise flawless economic theory on this axiom.... a theory, I should add, that would fix all the world's economic problems if it worked as I'd theorized, but would cause countless more problems if it didn't.... one could claim that my theory was flawless all they wanted to, but when it turned out that not everyone did like chocolate, the theory would fall to pieces..... because the very philosophical axiom I based it on was the presumption that everyone liked chocolate.
We understand that you are saying that he built his economic theory on an untenable foundation, and we understand what they could mean for his economic theory. We aren't disputing that building a system on top of an untenable foundation could mean that the entire thing could topple down at any moment. It is pretty uncharitable to act like that is what we are arguing about, because nobody reasonable would ever disagree with that.
What we are saying is that he didn't build it on top of an untenable foundation. We don't think that your argument that it is untenable is correct. We think that it is a strawman. The argument is about whether the foundation is untenable, not about whether an untenable foundation could mean the destruction of a system.
aderwent: Secondly, how many people do you know who are illogical? I happen to know quite a lot. Logic, much like mathematics and language, is a learned behaviour. This is evident by the fact that there's a fairly hefty list of logical fallacies that most people fall prey too when attempting simple logic. Everything from circular reasoning to argument from authority. [...] Unfortunately, it seems that logic is significantly less important in our day to day lives than language is, because it's something that's sorely lacking in a significant chunk of the population.
Secondly, how many people do you know who are illogical? I happen to know quite a lot. Logic, much like mathematics and language, is a learned behaviour. This is evident by the fact that there's a fairly hefty list of logical fallacies that most people fall prey too when attempting simple logic. Everything from circular reasoning to argument from authority.
[...]
Unfortunately, it seems that logic is significantly less important in our day to day lives than language is, because it's something that's sorely lacking in a significant chunk of the population.
The definitions of words aren't immutable. They aren't absolute. Some people use the same words in the same contexts differently than other people. It might seem like it would be superfluous to say something like that, because it seems so obvious, but it unfortunately isn't. It is one of the most common and dangerous errors that people make to just carelessly assume that they are talking about the same thing as somebody else just because they are using the same word.
Well, you are making that mistake right now. First, he didn't even say anything like that everybody is "logical". That is just a ridiculous caricature of his position. But he said something similar to that, which apparently is what is tripping you up. He assumed that the "logical structure" of everybody was uniform, that everybody in the world thought with the same basic "logical structure". He didn't mean that everybody in the world didn't make mistakes, act stupid, or commit logical fallacies, but that everybody uses means to achieve ends, prefers A to B, and so on, which is to say the least a claim much less shocking.
What are you going to do next? Are you going to tell me that Mises was being unrealistic when he assumed that everybody was rational? The irresponsibility that it shows to make these sorts of attacks is almost just unbelievable to me. I seriously suggest that you think and read a little bit longer next time before you post something like this, because it sounds like the extent of your research was just skimming over a few sentences out of context.
aderwent: First off, one cannot simply jump to the conclusion that everybody has the same logical structure to their mind without proof of such... especially when one plans on basing their entire theory of economics on this shaky conclusion. [...] Again, he's not showing any proof of his statement. You can theorize that human beings all have the same "logical structure" to their minds, but without proof of such a statement, you're on shaky ground when building an economic theory based on such a claim. [...] Either way, as I've stated, basing the entire premise of your economic system on the shaky foundation of "I think all people are like X" without proof.... is setting yourself up for a fall.... it's academically laughable, and it's highly illogical. [...] This is what Mises has done: He's taken an unproven axiom and based his entire theory around it. If the comment about the nature of the human mind was simply an aside, and not central to his economic theory, then it would be forgiveable as it would not impact his theory at all.... but this statement that I've pointed out as a bare assertion, is the very core of his entire economic theory.
Again, he's not showing any proof of his statement. You can theorize that human beings all have the same "logical structure" to their minds, but without proof of such a statement, you're on shaky ground when building an economic theory based on such a claim.
This is what Mises has done: He's taken an unproven axiom and based his entire theory around it. If the comment about the nature of the human mind was simply an aside, and not central to his economic theory, then it would be forgiveable as it would not impact his theory at all.... but this statement that I've pointed out as a bare assertion, is the very core of his entire economic theory.
Even if I pretend that you didn't completely butcher your interpretation of what he meant by the "logical structure", you are still misguided. He never even intended to have proved that the logical structure of everybody is the same as everybody else. He in fact said the opposite. He said that it just "works" to act as if everybody else has the same logical structure, but that it may be admitted that it is impossible to tell whether they do or not.
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises: It is beyond doubt that the practice of considering fellow men as beings who think and act as I, the Ego, do has turned out well; on the other hand the prospect seems hopeless of getting a similar pragmatic verification for the postulate requiring them to be treated in the same manner as the objects of the natural sciences. The epistemological problems raised by the comprehension of other people's behavior are no less intricate than those of causality and incomplete induction. It may be admitted that it is impossible to provide conclusive evidence for the propositions that my logic is the logic of all other people and by all means absolutely the only human logic and that the categories of my action are the categories of all other people's action and by all means absolutely the categories of all human action. However, the pragmatist must remember that these propositions work both in practice and in science, and the positivist must not overlook the fact that in addressing his fellow men he presupposes--tacitly and implicitly--the intersubjective validity of logic and thereby the reality of the realm of the alter Ego's thought and action, of his eminent human character.
It is beyond doubt that the practice of considering fellow men as beings who think and act as I, the Ego, do has turned out well; on the other hand the prospect seems hopeless of getting a similar pragmatic verification for the postulate requiring them to be treated in the same manner as the objects of the natural sciences. The epistemological problems raised by the comprehension of other people's behavior are no less intricate than those of causality and incomplete induction. It may be admitted that it is impossible to provide conclusive evidence for the propositions that my logic is the logic of all other people and by all means absolutely the only human logic and that the categories of my action are the categories of all other people's action and by all means absolutely the categories of all human action. However, the pragmatist must remember that these propositions work both in practice and in science, and the positivist must not overlook the fact that in addressing his fellow men he presupposes--tacitly and implicitly--the intersubjective validity of logic and thereby the reality of the realm of the alter Ego's thought and action, of his eminent human character.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
scineram: But not every action is purposeful. I don't cough because I want to achieve something.
But not every action is purposeful. I don't cough because I want to achieve something.
If it isn't purposeful, it by definition isn't an action.
You do caugh because you want to achieve something. What you wanted to say is that most of the time you dont caugh conciously.
Yes, people make logical mistakes. But that doesn't imply anything about the logical structures of their minds.
From Human Action:
. From time immemorial men in thinking, speaking, and acting had taken the uni- formity and immutability of the logical structure of the human mind as an unquestionable fact. All scientific inquiry was based on this as- sumption. In the discussions about the epistemological character of economics, writers, for the first time in human history, denied this
proposition too.
Marxism asserts that a man's thinking is determined by his class affiliation. Every social class has a logic of its own. The product of thought cannot be anything else than an "ideological dis- guise" of the selfish class interests of the thinker. It is the task of a "sociology of knowledge" to unmask philosophies and scientific theories and to expose their "ideological" emptiness. Economics is a "bourgeois" makeshift, the economists are "sycophants" of capital. Only the classless society of the socialist utopia will substitute truth for "ideological" lies.
This polylogism was later taught in various other forms also. Historicism asserts that the logical structure of human thought and action is liable to change in the course of historical evolution. Racial polylogism assigns to each race a logic of its own. Finally there is irrationalism, contending that reason as such is not fit to elucidate the irrational forces that determine human behavior.
Such doctrines go far beyond the limits of economics. They ques- tion not only economics and praxeology but all other human knowl- edge and human reasoning in general. They refer to mathematics and physics as well as to economics. It seems therefore that the task of refuting them does not fall to any single branch of knowledge but to epistemology and philosophy. This furnishes apparent justifica- tion for the attitude of those economists who quietly continue their studies without bothering about epistemological problems and the objections raised by poIylogism and irrationalism. The physicist does not mind if somebody stigmatizes his theories as bourgeois, Western or Jewish; in the same way the economist should ignore detraction and slander. He should let the dogs bark and pay no heed to their yelping. It is seemly for him to remember Spinoza's dictum:
"Indeed, just as light defines itself and darkness, so truth sets the standard for itself and falsity."
However, the situation is not quite the same with regard to eco- nomics as it is with mathematics and the natural sciences. Polylogism and irrationaIism attack praxeology and economics. Although they formulate their statements in a general way to refer to all branches of knowledge, it is the sciences of human action that they really have in view. They say that it is an illusion to believe that scientific re- search can achieve results valid for people of all eras, races, and social classes, and they take pleasure in disparaging certain physical and biological theories as bourgeois or Western.
But if the soIution of practical problems requires the application of tbese stigmatized doc- trines, they forget their criticism. The technology of Soviet Russia utilizes without scruple all the results of bourgeois physics, chemistry,
and biology just as if they were valid for all classes. The Nazi engi- neers and physicians did not disdain to utilize the theories, discoveries, and inventions of people of "inferior" races and nations. The be- havior of people of all races, nations, religions, linguistic groups, and social classes clearly proves that they do not endorse the doctrines of polylogism and irrationalism as far as logic, mathematics, and the natural sciences are concerned.
So, bottom line, what Mises is saying to the OP from the grave is. "How come you are asking this on an economics forum? Why don't you go to a Physics or Engineering forum and point out that they are making a rather silly and unproven assumption, mainly that their logic is true in all times and places? All those bridges will just blow up the moment someone who thinks differently than you guys walk across it."
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
scineram:Yes, the bolded part is wrong.
I love how you take the meaning out of the term "logical structure" using rhetoric. I'm not sure if Mises did the same, but if he did, then he shouldn't have used the term in the first place. "Logical" implies logic, not action.
aderwent: I love how you take the meaning out of the term "logical structure" using rhetoric. I'm not sure if Mises did the same, but if he did, then he shouldn't have used the term in the first place. "Logical" implies logic, not action.
A lot of logic is about unchangeable facts about our minds. If you haven't ever studied logic other than the popular writings about fallacies and faulty reasoning, I can understand why you would think that "logic" isn't a good term to use in that situation.
Scineram,
Mises distinguishes between impulsive action and purpuseful action early in Human Action.
"everyone uses means to achieve ends"
This is a excessively simplistic view of logic, if that's what he truly meant. In fact, it's pure rhetoric.... "people do stuff to make stuff happen" .... well of course they do, and it really has no bearing in economic theory. Thing is, people also do stuff for no reason. What you're talking about here has nothing to do with logic. Animals also do stuff to make stuff happen... so do plants. Should we include their actions and desires into our economic equations as a result? Furthermore, should we classify their actions as "logic"? Logic isn't an action... it's a thought process. Mises, unless he was entirely ignorant to the definition of the term logic, was plainly claiming that the structure of everybody's thought process is the same.... which is a bare assertion at best, and just plain wrong in the grand scheme of things.
"prefers A to B"
Children often don't have preferences between similar things at all... at least not until they start becoming influenced by advertising. In fact, I read an article once that was discussing how it's the primary job of the advertiser to create preference where there would otherwise be none, as preference isn't a natural state of mind for human beings.
Well of course there "Would be preference where there otherwise would be none"- They wouldn't have even known it existed in the first place? But who are you to say that an advertisement for water is necessarily bad for a child who's subsisted on nothing but candy drinks?
Aderwent,
This is a excessively simplistic view of logic, if that's what he truly meant. In fact, it's pure rhetoric.... "people do stuff to make stuff happen" .... well of course they do, and it really has no bearing in economic theory.
Mises was not talking about logic, he was talking about reason. The fact that humans reason, I think, is nearly universally accepted (in the mainstream, sometimes this is reffered to as "thinking on the margin"). People do illogical things all the time, but strictly speaking they are not unreasonable. A person capable of reason is one who conducts a cost-benefit analysis (obviously, not strictly speaking) to every action. That is, every action is purposeful and is meant to achieve some end.
Animals, on the other hand, generally act instinctually, rather than reasonably. This is the major difference between most animals and humans.
In fact, I read an article once that was discussing how it's the primary job of the advertiser to create preference where there would otherwise be none, as preference isn't a natural state of mind for human beings.
Well, of course, it's obvious that if you don't know the product exists then you are not going to desire it, strictly speaking.
"In fact, I read an article once that was discussing how it's the primary job of the advertiser to create preference where there would otherwise be none, as preference isn't a natural state of mind for human beings."
What those advertisements do is they try to convince the viewers that the good advertised is particularly fit to satisfy their ends. For example, an ice cream adv that is well done might make the viewer think that the ice cream is a useful means at satisfying his desire for eating tasty things. Those ends (like eating tasty things) are all united in the general end of attaining the most satisfaction possible which is sort of the common unit to decide between different ends (and therefore their means, which are reflected in their ends and their use in attaining those ends). So those ads don't really have much effect on the general ends of man, but in the way that the viewer values certain goods' abilties to satisfy those ends.
Is it just me, or does it seem like every month someone new comes along and makes a topic trying to debunk the rationality of human action?
You make a common mistake, though, aderwent, which those wiser than I have already explained. I really don't have much more to add to this conversation.
Bare assertion.... citation needed. Please provide a link or a reference to the specific kind of logic you're referring to, so that I can research for myself whether or not the findings of modern psychology have come to the conclusion that it's an instinctual (hard wired) or learned behaviour.
That's a fair bit of an assumption (me having not studied much logic). I've been studying psychology and sociology for over a decade. Nice try though.
Which of course is why he used the term logic instead of the term reason.... Brilliant.
Humans reason, yes. That said, reason is a purely philosophical concept... something we've not placed a scientific definition on, therefore it could just be our observation of an amalgamation of human cognitive abilities. Furthermore, there's no evidence that reason as we've defined/observed it isn't learned.... unless of course you can provide me with some evidence. Good luck on that. A definitive, universally recognized definition of reason would be a great start.
I guarantee I could find a person that's willing to admit that they do things that they personally find unreasonable within a very short period of time. Yep.... I just found 5 people who were willing to admit that they do things that they personally find unreasonable. MYTH BUSTED!
I don't know ANYONE who does a cost-benefit analysis for every action. Apparently you think people are robots. If this is seriously what Mises is proposing, then I'd really like to see what research he's backing it up with...... or is it just your personal opinion of what he's proposing?
Like I said, we've defined reason in a purely philosophical paradigm, and the most common definitions dictate that it's a purely human trait.... a throwback to religious ideas of thought, instead of scientific ideas of thought. Recent research into cognition actually shows that there's not much difference between the minds chimps and humans: Chimps actually have remarkably similar brains, the main difference being that they have an eidetic (commonly known as "photographic") memory instead of the ability for complex communication. They basically lack the required cognitive empathy to mirror the highly complex actions of others. With this in mind, the only thing they really lack that would be required for the most descriptive definitions of "reason" is the complex culture brought forth by language. Ergo: The only thing separating reason from animal cognition is the ability to learn.... Therefore: If animals are incapable of reasoning, then the core element which prevents them from reasoning is a set of learned behaviours.
To a large part, preference is learned... specifically in regards to similar products. If you ask a young child whether they prefer one ball over another ball of similar type, they will stare at you blankly. This is because they have no concept of why people would prefer one of such a similar thing over another. Take Coke VS Pepsi for instance: If it weren't for advertisers, the vast majority of people would consider these products identical, aside from the label. That's not to say that people wouldn't prefer pop over juice, or beer over pop without such learned behaviours.... but the fine grained, highly detailed range of preferences that we're used to in society today is largely imposed on us by the marketplace, in order to create competition.
Could you make your main point in 1/2 sentences. I will try to reply. If you actually want a reply and not just t
To a large part, preference is learned... specifically in regards to similar products. If you ask a young child whether they prefer one ball over another ball of similar type, they will stare at you blankly. This is because they have no concept of why people would prefer one of such a similar thing over another.
In your example, that in no way suggests that preference is learned. What is happening there is that the child hasn't yet learned any information that might differentiate between the two balls. It's not that preference is taught to us, it's that we gain an increasingly large amount of information over our lifetimes that expands our knowledge of the choices presented to us. The child is confused not because they don't prefer A to B, but rather because they see both balls as A.
To further demonstrate the nature of preference in human action, consider some of the basic preferences: Feeling no pain may be preferred to feeling pain. Being sated may be preferred to feeling hunger. In both cases, an individual, even an infant, has a preference over one to the other. Hell, they might even enjoy being in pain or being hungry over the more comfortable options, but they still have a preference.
Really though aderwent, I encourage you to go read Human Action, because it's apparent you don't understand Mises's theory. I haven't even read it in it's entirity but he addresses most of what you're talking about in the first few chapters.
The word "logic" in this context does not refer to pure logic. Similarly, the phrase "the logic of chess" does not refer to pure logic. How about "the logic of poker"? "The logic of scientific investigation"? "The logic of accounting and finance"? Or, even, perhaps ... "the logic of human action"?
I believe Mises asserted that, insofar as the logic of human action, or "praxeology", is concerned, all human minds have the same "logical structure." This does not mean that everyone is logical, in the sense of good at reasoning, nor that they are particularly intelligent or rational. That is not the "logic" that Mises has in mind, though I admit he would have done well to be clearer on the matter.
I wonder why all these Marxist plants seem to have infiltrated our forums. They take Mises quotes and constantly pick them apart, taking him completely out of context, while completely ignoring the overall argument Mises makes. Seriously, are any of these thoughtful arguments, or just Socialists with nothing better to do with their time?
For gods sake folks, all he is saying is that if rent control (everythign else being equal) causes shortages in housing for people with blue hair, it also does it for people with black hair
FleetCenturion: I wonder why all these Marxist plants seem to have infiltrated our forums. They take Mises quotes and constantly pick them apart, taking him completely out of context, while completely ignoring the overall argument Mises makes. Seriously, are any of these thoughtful arguments, or just Socialists with nothing better to do with their time?
QFT.
At least if they knew English, unlike MerLan.
aderwent: This is a excessively simplistic view of logic, if that's what he truly meant. In fact, it's pure rhetoric.... "people do stuff to make stuff happen" .... well of course they do, and it really has no bearing in economic theory. Thing is, people also do stuff for no reason. What you're talking about here has nothing to do with logic. Animals also do stuff to make stuff happen... so do plants. Should we include their actions and desires into our economic equations as a result? Furthermore, should we classify their actions as "logic"? Logic isn't an action... it's a thought process. Mises, unless he was entirely ignorant to the definition of the term logic, was plainly claiming that the structure of everybody's thought process is the same.... which is a bare assertion at best, and just plain wrong in the grand scheme of things.
Can you give me an example of somebody acting without using a mean to achieve an end?
aderwent: Children often don't have preferences between similar things at all... at least not until they start becoming influenced by advertising. In fact, I read an article once that was discussing how it's the primary job of the advertiser to create preference where there would otherwise be none, as preference isn't a natural state of mind for human beings.
Which means that they see both things as A, instead of one as A and the other as B.
aderwent: That's a fair bit of an assumption (me having not studied much logic). I've been studying psychology and sociology for over a decade. Nice try though.
Psychology and sociology aren't logic. If you have just been studying psychology and sociology, your misunderstandings in fact make a lot more sense. The points of view of pure praxeology and logic are a lot different than those of psychology and sociology.
And I didn't even make the assumption that you haven't studied much logic. I just said that I would understand your understanding of the term "logic" if you haven't studied logic other than some of the popular writings on fallacies and faulty reasoning. If you have been studying tons of pure logic for the last ten years, it wouldn't mean that I was wrong about anything; it would just mean that I wouldn't be in a position to understand where your understanding of the term "logic" came from.
aderwent: Bare assertion.... citation needed. Please provide a link or a reference to the specific kind of logic you're referring to, so that I can research for myself whether or not the findings of modern psychology have come to the conclusion that it's an instinctual (hard wired) or learned behaviour.
No, that would bring us too far off-topic. I was just trying to explain to you what might be causing your misunderstandings about the term "logic", but it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to whether he was right or wrong what terms he used. If you think that "logical structure" was the wrong term to use in that situation, great. It might even be a good idea to make a thread about why you think it is a misleading term to use and what you suggest other people to use in that situation, but it wouldn't be on-topic in this thread, because this thread is about whether he was right or wrong, regardless of the term that he was using.
aderwent: To a large part, preference is learned... specifically in regards to similar products. If you ask a young child whether they prefer one ball over another ball of similar type, they will stare at you blankly. This is because they have no concept of why people would prefer one of such a similar thing over another. Take Coke VS Pepsi for instance: If it weren't for advertisers, the vast majority of people would consider these products identical, aside from the label. That's not to say that people wouldn't prefer pop over juice, or beer over pop without such learned behaviours.... but the fine grained, highly detailed range of preferences that we're used to in society today is largely imposed on us by the marketplace, in order to create competition.
Which again means that they see both things as A, instead of one as A and the other as B.
Well I don't mean to be offensive, but it sounds like you're missing the point or misunderstanding the axiom of action.
I'll risk over-simplifying this to try and help: The basis of human action is that people act because they are essentially "uncomfortable". If we weren't "uncomfortable" we would not act.
For example, you acted by writing this post. Not just literal action, but because you were "uncomfortable" with the axiom of action and you perhaps believed expressing this to us would relieve your discomfort (the post is a means to an end. your end, I'm guessing, is to understand and come to a proper conclusion on the axiom of action).
Do you deny my over-simplification?
Edit, it seems like you do.
You're missing the rest of the context. Although you see it as overly-simplistic, it's broad to make deductions (I don't know if Mises deliberately made it broad so I won't necessarily make that assertion).
Who wrote that does not know what advertising is as opposed to marketing. That is a common fallacy.