Political Theory

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

Caley McKibbin — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:31:38 GMT

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.

Who wrote that does not know what advertising is as opposed to marketing. That is a common fallacy.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

im_retarded — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:04:50 GMT

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.

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.

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).

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

I. Ryan — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:51:02 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

I. Ryan — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:46:07 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

I. Ryan — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:27:07 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

Smiling Dave — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:07:43 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

yessir — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:51:03 GMT

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

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

FleetCenturion — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:39:03 GMT

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?

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

Modus Tollens — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:15:53 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

Curius Dentatus — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:44:02 GMT

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.

Learned preferences does not disapprove Human Action. ILLogical rational does not disapprove Human Action. Please, I suggest you reread the 1st chapter.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

LogisticEarth — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:42:47 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

yessir — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:39:31 GMT

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

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

aderwent — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:05:09 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

aderwent — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:03:46 GMT

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.

Re: basis of 'human action' defective?

aderwent — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:59:36 GMT

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.