Tolerances versus preferences 

There is very considerable evidence, especially in behavioral finance and political science and risk/regret theory, that people hedge losses in very different ways than they pursue gains. The question of how problems or menus of choices are presented may be far more influential than the question of what solutions or options are offered as the means to resolve them. Pollsters, politicians, advocates of referendum measures, are all well aware of this potential and often exploit their powers heavily to influence the outcome and 'frame the debate' so as to achieve their ends.

Ideally, this dilemma would be resolved by giving each side the time and money to debate the issue in public in a relatively fixed time horizon, e.g. an election with generous writeoffs for political donations. However, some choices are so difficult to make and even more difficult to change, e.g. choice of a voting system in a democracy, trust in a monopoly to manage a public utility, etc., and the negotiation of a trade bloc including many countries.

In these once-in-a-generation choices, the specific balance of power in effect when the decision is made tends to be critical, and the importance of knowing whether one is dealing more with tolerances (i.e. likely unrest, violence, war) or preferences (i.e. happiness, creativity, satisfaction). Some propose that the political 'left' and 'right' are defined by habitual tendencies to emphasize one or the other, and to be cautious and carefully assess tolerances, or to be reckless and advocate new adventures.

One such theory is that of Moral Politics, by George Lakoff. Another is that of the Guardian Ethic and Trader Ethic by Jane Jacobs. There is some more controversial but difficult-to-refute evidence from cognitive science and from primatology that human females may have better intuition for tolerances, and human males may be more inclined to thinking in terms of preferences. To some this is 'obvious', to others (e.g. those who manage to defy the sexual stereotypes) it's 'sexist' and imposed by culture, which devolves into nature versus nurture debate.

It may also be significant that languages may provide richer ways to express concerns about tolerances, or desires and preferences. A language that has few ways to say 'yes' and many to say 'no', e.g. Japanese, may incline native speakers to tolerance not preference thinking. (see Sapir-Whorf hypothesis)

Regardless whether an innate cognitive bias, language's notation bias, or other more overt bias like economic interest or political gain motivates the presentation of any given choice, it seems that triggering the cautious, fearful, part of the brain has very different implications than triggering the greedy impulse to acquire more of what desires. Perhaps the most extreme statement of this view is that of Howard Bloom[?], whose book The Lucifer Principle[?] argues that all forms of evil originate in the gain-seeking impulses of the human hypothalmus[?], which trigger one to seek gains rather than rationally assess risk or fearfully do nothing. This isn't a widely accepted theory.

Nonetheless, the tolerances versus preferences issue underlies a good many debates regarding monopoly, including the infamous Microsoft antitrust case, where Microsoft argues preferences of users drive the market, and the US Department of Justice takes the position that they are forced into a situation they tolerate, and will accept, but that requires some intervention to correct.

A more abstract debate where tolerances versus preferences is invoked is one between approval voting (based on tolerances) and preference voting (usually called instant runoff voting although technically approval voting is just as instant and likewise runs off the least-approved candidates, negatively).

See also: antitrust, monopoly, voting system, approval voting, cognitive bias, Guardian Ethic

I dreamed I . . . AM I . . . wounded? "YOU ARE DEAD." With all its feathers. Look, what gorgeous dyes And how deep, lustrous greens are splashed and spilt Scatters soft beauty o'er th' emblazoned breast! A strange fowl! But most fit Pure as the sun! Some wine? Your goblet's empty? Let it foam! Rippled with lines that float like women's curls, Fierce-glowing as a chalice in the Mass? Ave Maria stella! -- ah, it broke! 'Tis said they break alone What, you look pale? A Birth of ve/venus.html">Venus, now -- or so I've heard, Hewn with the lithe grace of Praxiteles; A sultan; golden veils that drop like lawn -- Of your possessions, fortunate one! Don't writhe But take these cushions here! Rough tamarind, But men like you we feast at any price -- There's yours! Now, with a one-side-poisoned knife And leave one's friend with -- "fool" for epitaph! For pretty things and isn't very rich. . . . There, eat it all or I'll This bergamot And when you kiss Bianca's dimpled knee, Ho there, the Cardinal's litter! -- You must dine Is in, again with me -- hear Bice sing, Beside the calm Greek glories you have bought! Godspeed, Sir Cardinal! To the cool air! . . . -- He'll die within ten hours, I suppose -- The Breaking Point It was not when temptation came, And seared me white with burning scars; And held the very Fiend at grips; To range itself beside my foes, The Beast that dwells within me roared, For all the blusterings of Hell, For all the storm, for all the hate, And there was Peace as still as Death .

 On wordlookup.net  

All is still licensed under the GNU FDL.
It uses material from the wikipedia.