Here is the CNN article that mentions her home 'restocking' list was released.
Anyone know about any academic papers doing analysis on the delta between revealed and stated preferences in certain situations?
There's a lot left to be desired in the world of wealth management when it comes to measuring client risk tolerance. Most measures were created by financial institutions or fintech firms with little to no training in test design or subsequent analyses. Many firms are embracing a method from consumer psychology measuring preferences to provide insight into the level of risk a client can take instead of a psychometric approach to assessing client personality. The revealed preferences approach is appealing because the results easily map onto portfolio allocation percentages. However, they are also dependent on what's happening in the markets, and even companies pushing this approach acknowledge that clients have to tested frequently (e.g., each quarter). The psychometric approach allows advisors/planners to understand stable personality characteristics about a client that can predict future behavior (e.g., assessing their emotional stability in general in order to know what they might consider doing during 2008/2009). I've attempted to share the differences in these approaches below. https://www.datapoints.com/2021/06/02/rtq-psychometrics-versus-revealed-preferences/
- ISSN: 10116702
- URL: https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Journal+of+World+Trade/54.5/TRAD2020029
Thank you
This is not a new observation, but its really genuinely striking. Over the past few days, two major stories have emerged. In one, a journalist was attacked by a couple members or Antifa. In another, our government is running detention camps and abusing people in their custody.
And all you need to do is look at which story people care about. It tells you so much about their morality. I don't even care what your particularly opinion is on each story - I care more about which one occupies your mind. While one hits you. Which one is worth more time trying to understand.
On one level, I understand that conservatism is all about devotion to hierarchy with basically no other principles. But ever time I see it in action, I remain appalled.
Have a look at Tim Pool's channel if you don't believe me. Despite Pool (sometimes considered a member of the IDW) claiming to be a moderate liberal, his channel consists almost entirely of reactionary content against leftists. It's his bread and butter.
Dave Rubin hides it a little better, but he's much the same. Even Sam is starting to do this more and more, focusing disproportionately on the few incidents of antifa violence compared to the literal murders and terrorism committed by far-right fascists. US Antifa's body count remains at zero.
There's a meme on Left Twitter that Liberals (moderates) hate Socialists more than Fascists. I believe the IDW in large part proves it right.
My biggest fear is that antifa (and leftist groups they can link to it) will be pursued by the Trump DOJ as a "terrorist organization" while actual far-right terrorists inspired by Terrant, etc. are ignored and downplayed. You know its gonna happen, you know what kind of people cops and investigators sympathize with more.
I am bored so I created this ranking for the ivy+ schools based on the Parchment college match up tool, which does a pairwise comparison of the cross admit split for all schools.
https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php
Each school loses the cross admit battle with the schools ranked higher and wins over those ranked below.
- Harvard
- Stanford
- MIT
- Yale
- Princeton
- Columbia
- Penn (not statistically significant loss to Columbia but based on this sample its a bit behind - 47% vs 53%)
- Duke (ties with Penn but loses a higher % to HYPSM than Penn, thus ranked it below Penn)
- Brown
- Dartmouth
- UChicago
- Cornell
- Northwestern
- Hopkins
I was recently rereading Rothbard's "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics " and I was curious what sort of shifts have happened in Austrian welfare economics surrounding the definition or measurement of welfare. Rothbard writes,
>Let us now consider exchanges on the free market. Such an exchange is voluntarily undertaken by both parties. Therefore, the very fact that an exchange takes place demonstrates that both parties benefit (or more strictly, expect to benefit) from the exchange. The fact that both parties chose the exchange demonstrates that they both benefit. (p. 28)
There's something striking about the "expect to benefit" (p. 28) qualifier. It would seem then that a voluntary exchange might result in one party not benefiting. One party might have chosen poor means for their preferred ends and therefore not actually benefit from their exchange. For example, if someone was unaware that McDonald's was unhealthy, they may have the end in mind of 'get healthy' but given their information, they make a choice which does not actually benefit them.
I recognize that the actor would still be choosing that which is highest on his ordinal preference ranking (and is this not praxeologically apodictic?). But Rothbard by saying that people expect to benefit seems to admit that some choices are not truly the most beneficial. i.e. He does not equate 'receiving that which is highest possible on his ordinal preference ranking' and 'welfare' or 'benefit'.
Some non-Austrian economists have certainly concerned themselves with this problem. One pretty popular contemporary example is Faruk Gul and Woflgang Pesendorfer's "The Case for Mindless Economics". Gul and Pesendorfer do away with the problem by defining it out of question. They equate choices with welfare. They write,
>As its welfare criterion, standard economics uses the individuals’ choice behavior, that is, revealed preferences. Alternative x is deemed to be better than alternative y if and only if, given the opportunity, the individual would choose x over y. Hence, welfare is defined to be synonymous with choice behavior. (p. 7)
This is a bit of a problem for libertarian ideologues (no doubt, myself included in that group) who want to say that free market exchanges always increase welfare. In fact, that is a claim ma
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I read an old New Yorker article where Esther Duflo said:
One advocacy organization, the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, responded to the study on its Web site, noting that the poor seemed keen to take up such loans: “Does microfinance improve their lives? Poor people say yes.” Duflo described this to me as “the moronic revealed-preference argument.” People have been known to buy ill-advised things, after all. Drug dealers thrive.
Does this capture what most economists think nowadays of this theory?
Long story short, sevenish months ago I came to the conclusion I would much rather be a woman. (I don't hate being a guy, yet, but my current appearance is causing me increased discomfort.) I've "come out" online, but am still closeted in "real life", including to my wife. I haven't started HRT.
As I try to untangle my feelings, I find that imagining myself as a passive partner in imaginary sexual encounters is more and more appealing and exciting. (Note: I have a 14-month old, and my wife and I have not had sex in almost two years now. Because kids. So this is all imaginary.) That's where my sexual fantasies go now; me as the submissive, being controlled by a more aggressive partner. Not necessarily roughly, though I imagine that too sometimes, just with them taking the lead.
I've also recently come to admit that I'm bisexual; female and androgynous bodies are still way more appealing to me than masculine ones, but genitals no longer really matter to me. Both sets are fine. I'm bringing this up, because along with my relatively new fantasies of being submissive are fantasies of... well... being penetrated.
I've read that HRT can change people's sexual preferences, but I haven't started yet. I'm thinking that wanting to be a woman means I'm seeing taking on the "traditionally female" role of being the passive, submissive, recpetive sexual partner exciting. That I'm rejecting the "traditionally masculine" role of being aggressive and controlling.
Has or did this happen to anyone else?
