Disqus - Latest Comments for Patri Friedman

Re: The Evaluative Worthlessness of Happiness

Patri Friedman — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:40:21 -0000

It seems that there is almost nothing one can do to significantly and permanently alter one's natural temperamental disposition to happiness.

I don't understand why this statement is meaningful. Its like saying there is nothing one can do to alter one's natural disposition to be a certain height, or have a certain skin tone, or any of the other things which genes have an effect on. But one can choose to get more or less sun, one can be malnourished and short or take HGH and be taller.

Of course we can't change our dispositions. That's what a disposition is. But we can change all the other things that go into the formula, along with disposition, to determine the end result.

Re: The Fly Bottle Cash-for-Content SuperNovember Fundraiser

Patri Friedman — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:43:02 -0000

Poker? Hey, can I contribute by beating you at poker, hence teaching you how to play better, hence increasing your future earning potential at the game?

Re: Barriers to Hedonic Trade

Patri Friedman — Mon, 09 May 2005 17:29:23 -0000

I agree that the answer is that cost is not low, but I think it requires some further explanation as to why that is true. That is, all you need is a 25 cent condom and two consenting individuals, and sex can happen. But mostly it doesn't. Why?

The answer seems very obvious to me: because our sexual instincts are the product of evolution, they are very discriminate (and far more so for women than men). Men want partners who appear young and healthy, and women want a lot more than that. Further, because we are a species with a reasonable amount of monogamy and committment, there are relationship issues too.

As evidence for this perspective, I'm pretty sure that young gay men have a lot more sex than young heterosexual men.

Re: Happiness? Equality? What?

Patri Friedman — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:46:35 -0000

I agree that the spin put on the research is very political, but I don't think that condemns the research. I think it is interesting and important that absolute money beyond a certain amount doesn't seem to add much to happiness. This is not economically revolutionary - its just declining marginal utility that declines faster than we thought - but it is interesting.

But the pitch as "so then rich people won't suffer much if we take their money" instead of "So poor people aren't actually that unhappy" and "Why should we be sympathetic to people who are sad because of their relative poverty even though they are rich on an absolute scale" is rather biased.