Conquer Club

You are a hunter and you live in a cold and bitter land. You have recently purchased 2 puppies to help with the hunt when they are fully grown. You have little to feed them, and what you have you give to them in one bowl. The larger dog eats first and has his fill, and leaves little for the other dog. As they grow one dog becomes bigger and stronger while the other stays small and sickly. Seeing this, do you separate their feedings so that the smaller dog might receive an equal portion, or do you let nature take it's course and see if the smaller dog can fight for it's fair share?

The Bison King wrote:You are a hunter and you live in a cold and bitter land. You have recently purchased 2 puppies to help with the hunt when they are fully grown. You have little to feed them, and what you have you give to them in one bowl. The larger dog eats first and has his fill, and leaves little for the other dog. As they grow one dog becomes bigger and stronger while the other stays small and sickly. Seeing this, do you separate their feedings so that the smaller dog might receive an equal portion, or do you let nature take it's course and see if the smaller dog can fight for it's fair share?

Unlikely you would have 2 dogs unless you needed both, so of course you intervene. Also, even if you want to sell one, you have no gain by letting the other dog get bigger.

BUT, the real answer is to get another bowl and then both dogs will eat to compete and grow big OR just provide more food.

And.. this is NOT a natural situation, it is a human dictating. Its not really how dogs generally act on their own.

The Bison King wrote:You are a hunter and you live in a cold and bitter land. You have recently purchased 2 puppies to help with the hunt when they are fully grown. You have little to feed them, and what you have you give to them in one bowl. The larger dog eats first and has his fill, and leaves little for the other dog. As they grow one dog becomes bigger and stronger while the other stays small and sickly. Seeing this, do you separate their feedings so that the smaller dog might receive an equal portion, or do you let nature take it's course and see if the smaller dog can fight for it's fair share?

Need more info on the utility (i.e. usefulness) of each dog at its current size. Would an increase in the food toward the little dog create a decrease in the food to the big dog? If yes, then I'll assume that the reduction in the big dog's food would lead to a decrease in its utility. If this decrease in utility could be offset with an increase in utility from the little dog at a lower cost in additional units of food, then sure, feed the little dog more food.

But setting their food to equal portions might not be the best way to solve this dilemma. It's at the margin that matters.

I'll have Lootifer graph the diminishing marginal utility; maybe he could bedazzle you guys with a production-possibility frontier.

Since you have little to feed the puppies, should we take it for granted
that you are also not a very successful hunter?

Well it would depend if the little dog was just awfully cute and precious, then I would have to feed him separately.

You mean that big dog is eating enough for two? Aren't you worried about it getting fat?

what kind of weaponry are you using to hunt? what are you hunting? can you kill the sickly dog and use it as bait?

You give enough food to the little one of course.

But the real answer is focus in your hunting, because you are clearly not good on it.

The Bison King wrote:You are a hunter and you live in a cold and bitter land. You have recently purchased 2 puppies to help with the hunt when they are fully grown. You have little to feed them, and what you have you give to them in one bowl. The larger dog eats first and has his fill, and leaves little for the other dog. As they grow one dog becomes bigger and stronger while the other stays small and sickly. Seeing this, do you separate their feedings so that the smaller dog might receive an equal portion, or do you let nature take it's course and see if the smaller dog can fight for it's fair share?

I would have fed them equally from the start and not been such a dumb f*ck. Then I'd have two big, mean, kick ass dogs while you sit there sniveling over the predicament which you got yourself into.

Of course, if there wasn't enough food to do this from the start, then you have one of two options. First of all, don't buy two fucking puppies!!!! Buy one and extra food. Then this dog would have even more food, which would make it even bigger and stronger. But if you get both dogs, and see the second dog getting smaller and weaker than the other, kill the little runt. It's gonna serve no use except maybe feeding Brutus and yourself. Who knows, maybe even a comfortable pair of shoes, or a hat.

Whatever the scenario, I worry for your sanity Sir, as this topic is loaded.

i <3 metaphors

Need more info on the utility (i.e. usefulness) of each dog at its current size. Would an increase in the food toward the little dog create a decrease in the food to the big dog?

Well dude we just don't know that. Perhaps the smaller dog will be forced to fight for his meal and become stronger. Perhaps he'll die from being a complete bitch. Perhaps the larger dog will become some sort of super dog if left to become the alpha.

On the flip side if you share the food the larger dog is likely to lose his prowess, you may get stuck with 2 dogs who are both mediocre at hunting rather than 1 dog who excels.

Unlikely you would have 2 dogs unless you needed both, so of course you intervene

Whatever they we're given to you. You're kind of missing the point.

OR just provide more food.

I thought it was pretty clear that that isn't an option. The dogs are there TO help you get more food.

and.. this is NOT a natural situation, it is a human dictating. Its not really how dogs generally act on their own.

oh my god just shut the hell up. God you are annoying.

Since you have little to feed the puppies, should we take it for granted
that you are also not a very successful hunter?

yeah you suck.

Well it would depend if the little dog was just awfully cute and precious, then I would have to feed him separately.

They're both ugly.

You mean that big dog is eating enough for two? Aren't you worried about it getting fat?

No, he's getting an average amount of food. There just isn't that much food, you're a shitty hunter.

what kind of weaponry are you using to hunt? what are you hunting? can you kill the sickly dog and use it as bait?

Compound bow, anything you can fine, yes.

I would have fed them equally from the start and not been such a dumb f*ck. Then I'd have two big, mean, kick ass dogs while you sit there sniveling over the predicament which you got yourself into.

No, if you feed them both equally they can only be mediocre at best. There just isn't enough food at this point to raise to big strong alpha dogs.

i <3 metaphors

Waaaah??? this is no metaphor! I'm really talking about dogs

The Bison King wrote:

Unlikely you would have 2 dogs unless you needed both, so of course you intervene

Whatever they we're given to you. You're kind of missing the point.

Well, you said "purchase".

But if you cannot care for 2, then don't take them. If they are dumped on you, then you give one away or even, if you absolutely have to, "put it down" ..more humane than letting the thing starve!

The Bison King wrote:

OR just provide more food.

I thought it was pretty clear that that isn't an option. The dogs are there TO help you get more food.

OK, I did forget the no food part. the answer to that is, again, don't have dogs you cannot feed. Per the "to get more food" bit,t hough, the trouble is your scenario is stupid. Puppies don't hunt. If you don't have enough food as it is, then you need to do something other than getting a dog. The time you spend training that dog to help you is better speant getting better at hunting.

The Bison King wrote:

and.. this is NOT a natural situation, it is a human dictating. Its not really how dogs generally act on their own.

oh my god just shut the hell up. God you are annoying.

Tough. You posted. And, the trouble is your "scenario" is just too like what a lot of idiots really DO think.. and part of why we have millions of strays in this country.

The Bison King wrote:

Since you have little to feed the puppies, should we take it for granted
that you are also not a very successful hunter?

yeah you suck.

Seems you dish it out, but don't want to take it.

OK, I did forget the no food part. the answer to that is, again, don't have dogs you cannot feed. Per the "to get more food" bit,t hough, the trouble is your scenario is stupid. Puppies don't hunt. If you don't have enough food as it is, then you need to do something other than getting a dog. The time you spend training that dog to help you is better speant getting better at hunting.

The dogs are an investment. Yeah they don't help you hunt now but they will help you hunt in the future.

Tough. You posted. And, the trouble is your "scenario" is just too like what a lot of idiots really DO think.. and part of why we have millions of strays in this country.

ok... you are aware that this really isn't about dogs, right?

Player wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

Since you have little to feed the puppies, should we take it for granted
that you are also not a very successful hunter?

yeah you suck. (as a hunter)

Seems you dish it out, but don't want to take it.

(implied and pretty obvious)

The Bison King wrote:ok... you are aware that this really isn't about dogs, right?

No, I took it pretty literally.
I should say that in addition to being married to a hunter (who has used dogs, though we don't own one now) I grew up on a farm, where we used to get dogs and cats dumped frequently. The LUCKY ones were the ones we found alive and took to the pound. As a child, I was upset that they might be put to sleep (we kept a few). As an adult .. I get angry at people who have animals and then don't take responsibility for them.


And, I guess that is a big problem with some analogies. (ones I use included) particularly when its not clarified that it is an analogy.

But.. basically, I think this is the type of scenario that folks say is real, but essentially never is. The times when you let one dog starve, etc as a realistically sensible choice are pretty slim. If you clarified.. maybe I could see an exception, but right now, I cannot.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

The Bison King wrote:You are a hunter and you live in a cold and bitter land. You have recently purchased 2 puppies to help with the hunt when they are fully grown. You have little to feed them, and what you have you give to them in one bowl. The larger dog eats first and has his fill, and leaves little for the other dog. As they grow one dog becomes bigger and stronger while the other stays small and sickly. Seeing this, do you separate their feedings so that the smaller dog might receive an equal portion, or do you let nature take it's course and see if the smaller dog can fight for it's fair share?

Need more info on the utility (i.e. usefulness) of each dog at its current size. Would an increase in the food toward the little dog create a decrease in the food to the big dog? If yes, then I'll assume that the reduction in the big dog's food would lead to a decrease in its utility. If this decrease in utility could be offset with an increase in utility from the little dog at a lower cost in additional units of food, then sure, feed the little dog more food.

But setting their food to equal portions might not be the best way to solve this dilemma. It's at the margin that matters.

I'll have Lootifer graph the diminishing marginal utility; maybe he could bedazzle you guys with a production-possibility frontier.

I think I need two graphs for this THIS IS NO SIMPLE DOGONE MATTER!!!

The Bison King wrote:

Need more info on the utility (i.e. usefulness) of each dog at its current size. Would an increase in the food toward the little dog create a decrease in the food to the big dog?

Well dude we just don't know that. Perhaps the smaller dog will be forced to fight for his meal and become stronger. Perhaps he'll die from being a complete bitch. Perhaps the larger dog will become some sort of super dog if left to become the alpha.

On the flip side if you share the food the larger dog is likely to lose his prowess, you may get stuck with 2 dogs who are both mediocre at hunting rather than 1 dog who excels.

Utility is simply the usefulness you perceive from each dog's existence. Usefulness isn't just productivity, but also the ability to satisfy whatever desire you may have (e.g. "omg, cute puppies make me feel happy").

There's an implicit story behind your scenario. It would mention the usefulness of having a small puppy because it's so cute. It would also mention that through trial-and-error the hunter would have a roundabout estimate of the productivity of the large dog.

That knowledge of each dog's utility is there even if you didn't articulate it. It's revealed through the profit and loss opportunities taken by the hunter.

My point is this:

Doing either of these two is stupid: (1) distribute an equal portion or (2) let the dogs eat as they will.

Marginal utility matters; therefore, the shifts in their dog food should be marginal--not immediately equalized, and not simply "let the dogs decide." Dogs can't rationally economize with resources on the margin, but the hunter can.

I make some delicious stew. Yumy yummy stew.

Also add in that the scenario is not a simple one, there are non-linear and stepwise dynamics at play here; non-linear comes from as BBS says the marginal effect of food on the dog (dimishing return) and the stepwise funtion comes from the fact that 3 hunters (you and two dogs) is going to provide a very different dynamic than 2 hunters (you, 1 dog and 1 useless runt).

So no that we have boiled that down, what was the point of you thread? did you want to tease out meanie pants dog haters? Or are you a meany pants dog hater?

So no that we have boiled that down, what was the point of you thread? did you want to tease out meanie pants dog haters? Or are you a meany pants dog hater

Feeding the dogs from one bowl and letting them decide represents the free market, dividing their food equally was socialism. The metaphor needs a little work, I think I need to change it to "you had a female dog who died giving birth to 2 puppies" since people seem to get hung up on the whole "why did you buy puppies you can't feed" thing. But yeah, according to this crude analogy most of you seem to think that the free market is a bad idea.

The Bison King wrote:You are a hunter and you live in a cold and bitter land. You have recently purchased 2 puppies to help with the hunt when they are fully grown. You have little to feed them, and what you have you give to them in one bowl. The larger dog eats first and has his fill, and leaves little for the other dog. As they grow one dog becomes bigger and stronger while the other stays small and sickly. Seeing this, do you separate their feedings so that the smaller dog might receive an equal portion, or do you let nature take it's course and see if the smaller dog can fight for it's fair share?

No,no,no,no,no,no, NO!

The Bison King wrote:

So no that we have boiled that down, what was the point of you thread? did you want to tease out meanie pants dog haters? Or are you a meany pants dog hater

Feeding the dogs from one bowl and letting them decide represents the free market, dividing their food equally was socialism. The metaphor needs a little work, I think I need to change it to "you had a female dog who died giving birth to 2 puppies" since people seem to get hung up on the whole "why did you buy puppies you can't feed" thing. But yeah, according to this crude analogy most of you seem to think that the free market is a bad idea.

Your analogy with the free market doesn't hold.

1) Humans don't equal 2 dogs, or any dog for that matter. Humans are capable of economizing on scarce resources--dogs just gobble it all up (i.e. 100% consumption).

2) Humans generally are capable of learning from trial-and-error, thus capable of determining a somewhat best distribution of food per utility for each dog.

3) Dogs can't spontaneously develop political, economic, and cultural institutions nearly as advanced as humans (if at all).

4) The market process isn't "food in a bowl, come get it at almost zero transaction costs for some unknown, varying amount of labor." Your depiction is somewhat more appropriate for a barter economy.

5) Where's the voluntary exchange? How does that play out in this supposedly free market v. socialism analogy?

6) The assumption that the hunter (one individual) is capable of designing the "socialism" or "free market" scenario completely misses the point of the free market. There's no central, single designer in the free market. It's about millions of individuals interacting; it's about disperse knowledge across these millions; it's about how prices transmit information, reveal knowledge which isn't as efficiently or isn't able to be articulated; it's about how profit and loss induce innovation; how privete property rights create incentives for greater growth in prosperity and innovation; ...

Etc., etc., etc.



EDIT: lol, I can't count.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

So no that we have boiled that down, what was the point of you thread? did you want to tease out meanie pants dog haters? Or are you a meany pants dog hater

Feeding the dogs from one bowl and letting them decide represents the free market, dividing their food equally was socialism. The metaphor needs a little work, I think I need to change it to "you had a female dog who died giving birth to 2 puppies" since people seem to get hung up on the whole "why did you buy puppies you can't feed" thing. But yeah, according to this crude analogy most of you seem to think that the free market is a bad idea.

Your analogy with the free market doesn't hold.

1) Humans don't equal 2 dogs, or any dog for that matter. Humans are capable of economizing on scarce resources--dogs just gobble it all up (i.e. 100% consumption).

2) Humans generally are capable of learning from trial-and-error, thus capable of determining a somewhat best distribution of food per utility for each dog.

2) Dogs can't spontaneously develop political, economic, and cultural institutions nearly as advanced as humans (if at all).

3) The market process isn't "food in a bowl, come get it at almost zero transaction costs for some unknown, varying amount of labor." Your depiction is somewhat more appropriate for a barter economy.

4) Where's the voluntary exchange? How does that play out in this supposedly free market v. socialism analogy?

5) The assumption that the hunter (one individual) is capable of designing the "socialism" or "free market" scenario completely misses the point of the free market. There's no central, single designer in the free market. It's about millions of individuals interacting; it's about disperse knowledge across these millions; it's about how prices transmit information, reveal knowledge which isn't as efficiently or isn't able to be articulated; it's about how profit and loss induce innovation; how privete property rights create incentives for greater growth in prosperity and innovation; ...

Etc., etc., etc.

When talking of American society people often say " it's a dog eat dog world out there"

Therefore this is a perfect analogy.

If I were a hunter, I would join a bunch of games with newbies in them and then I'd bust those newbies as multis.

I'm disappointed no one liked my stew idea

Baron Von PWN wrote:I'm disappointed no one liked my stew idea

I've never tried puppy stew, but I have tried dog roasted on a spit. Quite good actually.