Slashdot Mirror
Why Transitivity Violations Can Be Rational
ananyo writes "Organisms, including humans, are often assumed to be hard-wired by evolution to try to make optimal decisions, to the best of their knowledge. Ranking choices consistently — for example, in selecting food sources — would seem to be one aspect of such rationality. If A is preferred over B, and B over C, then surely A should be selected when the options are just A and C? This seemingly logical ordering of preferences is called transitivity. Furthermore, if A is preferred when both B and C are available, then A should 'rationally' remain the first choice when only A and B are at hand ... But sometimes animals do not display such logic. For example, honeybees and gray jays have been seen to violate the Independence of Irrational Alternatives, and so have hummingbirds ... Researchers have now used a theoretical model to show that, in fact, violations of transitivity can sometimes be the best choice (original paper) for the given situation, and therefore rational. The key is that the various choices might appear or disappear in the future. Then the decision becomes more complicated than a simple, fixed ranking of preferences. So while these choices look irrational, they aren't necessarily."
You are the most knee-jerk racist...
Why? I'm not the one saying that stereotypes are accurate.
... hiding in a "liberal" sheep's coat that I've ever read comment here.
That's cute, the whole "liberal sheep's coat" thing, whatever it's supposed to mean. I guess, for you, it's not possible for a person to, say, support social welfare as a fiscal conservative, or be pro-2nd Amendment and... uh...
OK, to be honest, outside of the aforementioned topics (and abortion) I really have zero clue as to what defines a person as a "liberal" or "conservative" in the political sense. I prefer to just be me, not affiliated with any party or group, and holding my own opinions instead of having them spoon fed to me. So when a self-defined "conservative" accuses me of being "liberal," or vice-versa, I normally just chalk it up to that person being ignorant of both the terms used and topic at hand.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You obviously know nothing about women.
My wife loves chocolate as well, but hates to eat it because she likes being skinny more than she likes eating chocolate (and if you ask any woman, the two are mutually exclusive).
Right: You're the one perpetuating misogynistic stereotypes, but I'm the guy who knows nothing about women...
...and you are the one who missed that the GP was making a statement of fact about one particular woman who they know well, not making a stereotypical generalisation.
So, the phrase, "and if you ask any woman..." doesn't imply generalization? Sure sounds that way to me.
But since you bring it up, my wife has also said this to me pretty much verbatim...
Oh, cool, so anecdotes have become the plural of evidence? Because I know a lot of women who would take offense to that, and since "a lot" is obviously more than 2, then by your 'logic' I am correct.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese