Talk:Revealed preference

WARP

The Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference (WARP) needs to be included. 70.111.248.60 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dramatically edited (improved I hope) this section. Let me know if something needs modification. --Masalih (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

theory has a problem

revealed preferred only means, "at least as good as." Not better than. So you have to have the concept of the consumer choosing A and not being indifferent between A and B to say that A is preferred to B. However, revealed preferred to is often stated so we don't know of B is just as good as or not. I don't see a great way to include this without overhauling the page. Before I do that, do others agree? Pdbailey (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've reread the Mas-Colell, and the axiom is stated this way : if x and y belong to B and x belongs to C(B) (the choice correspondence), then for any B' with x and y belonging to B' and y belonging to C(B'), we must also have x belongs to C(B') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.163.195.76 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinebot correctly gives definition 1.C.1 from Mas-Colell, Whinston and Green (MWG). But footnote 5 (p11) and exercise 1.C.1 from MWG make clear that we can't have y in C(B). (This is my 1st wikipedia submission so I hope it is ok.)Paulwhy (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keeping criticism section

This edit removed a criticism section. The section has problems (who is Koch?), for sure, but it also has at least some basis. Wong's book, for instance, is notable enough that Samuelson refers to it in an essay "How Foundations Came To Be". At least these references exist:

I'll pull out the truly dead links, and the section might want improvement, but it doesn't look like it merits complete removal. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the dead links was trying to point here, but I don't see what's to be gained from that, so I'm pulling it out rather than fixing it. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrated preference

I propose demonstrated preference be merged into revealed preference. The stated difference (that "demonstrated" preferences are not assumed constant) are not assumed in this article. If this article were repurposed for that, it might be appropriate, but there's no reason to do that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's assumed in this article has absolutely no bearing on the fact that it is a defining characteristic of revealed preferences. Murray Rothbard fundamentally disagreed with Samuelson's assumption that preferences are constant so he developed his own concept which did not make that assumption. You would have known this if you had thoroughly researched the topic before suggesting the redirect...

“Revealed preference”—preference revealed through choice—would have been an apt term for our concept. It has, however, been preempted by Samuelson for a seemingly similar but actually quite different concept of his own. The critical difference is this: Samuelson assumes the existence of an underlying preference scale that forms the basis of a man’s actions and that remains constant in the course of his actions over time. Samuelson then uses complex mathematical procedures in an attempt to “map” the individual’s preference scale on the basis of his numerous actions.

The prime error here is the assumption that the preference scale remains constant over time. There is no reason whatever for making any such assumption. All we can say is that an action, at a specific point of time, reveals part of a man’s preference scale at that time. There is no warrant for assuming that it remains constant from one point of time to another.

The “revealed preference” theorists do not recognize that they are assuming constancy; they believe that their assumption is simply that of consistent behavior, which they identify with “rationality.” They will admit that people are not always “rational,” but uphold their theory as being a good first approximation or even as having normative value. However, as Mises has pointed out, constancy and consistency are two entirely different things. Consistency means that a person maintains a transitive order of rank on his preference scale (if A is preferred to B and B is preferred to C, then A is preferred to C). But the revealed preference procedure does not rest on this assumption so much as on an assumption of constancy—that an individual maintains the same value scale over time. While the former might be called irrational, there is certainly nothing irrational about someone’s value scales changing through time. Hence, no valid theory can be built on a constancy assumption. - Rothbard, Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics

This being said, if you wanted to create an article Individual valuation then it would make sense to include these two concepts, and a few others, within that entry. However, even if you did create that entry, it still wouldn't make any sense to delete either of these two entries. --Xerographica (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just open an Article for Deletion process and resolve this. It doesn't appear any editor is able or willing to improve this to the point where it can stand on its own. I am relatively inexperienced and am not confident I can properly initiate the AfD. SPECIFICO talk 04:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand Rothbard's criticism here and looking around it seems there is stuff written on the concept of "demonstrated preference" as distinct from "revealed preference". However, right now this article has nothing in it. Ok, it has a quote from Rothbard, but that's not really content, just a quote, which properly belongs at Wikiquote. So unless actual material of substance is added here, I think this should just be merged into Revealed Preference, as a criticism of that concept.Volunteer Marek 21:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you give stubs an improvement deadline...then you're kind of missing the point of stubs. The demonstrated preference concept (as in actions speak louder than words)...is sufficiently notable to warrant its own entry. But that doesn't mean that as soon as the entry is created...you give those who have the knowledge...or interest...a week to find it and improve it...or else. I certainly have the knowledge and interest to improve it...but right now my priority is trying to improve the tax choice entry. Who knows though whether tomorrow, or a month from now, or a year from now...an expert is going to stumble upon the entry and contribute to it. But they can't contribute to something that doesn't exist. So if you take away this entry then you're simply taking away people's contribution options. The point of Wikipedia is to capture dispersed knowledge and that requires casting a wide net...because well, knowledge is dispersed. --Xerographica (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marek is right. Until and unless there's actually more to the article than a longish quote (that btw, violates WP:QUOTE), the article name should redirect to revealed preference. I'm going to redirect it myself if no one else does soon. Xero, rather than arguing the point, build up the article, add some content and some references. Even after the article name is redirected, it can easily be reinstated if there is an actual article to put there, with cited relevant content. LK (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An absence of content on the demonstrated preference article is your only justification for redirecting it to revealed preference? Seriously? If that's the case...then your redirect would be original research. It would be based solely on your opinion and it would certainly go against everything the reliable sources have to say about the subject... User:Xerographica/Preference revelation and Talk:Demonstrated_preference#Revealed_preference. --Xerographica (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verification Template

Apparently, "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2012)". Somebody care to explain what exactly needs citation? Thanks! --Masalih (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

complaint

this article is pitched at WAY to high a level for a general encyclopedia what is wrong with you people ??? you want to do all that math, and use wierd terms like "budget set" fine, but first you have to write something the avg high school grad can understand total fail on that part — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.49.238 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preference within a bundle

If a child has a cookie and an apple and eats the apple first, you can't assume that they preferred the apple. Maybe they saved the cookie to get the horrid taste of apple out of their mouth. Or perhaps the intend to save the cookie for later. Or perhaps they are sick of cookies now but might like a cookie later. Order tells you nothing. Asking tells you everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggb667 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Quah's comment on this article

Dr. Quah has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article is very misleading. Does not give an up-to-date account of revealed preference analysis at all -- for example, there is no discussion of Afriat's Theorem or Richter's Theorem or other canonical results in revealed preference. It is also narrow -- the idea of deducing preferences from observed actions is pervasive in economics and its application is not confined to consumer theory.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Quah has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference 1: John Quah, 2014. "A test for weakly separable preferences," Economics Series Working Papers 708, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

Reference 2: John Quah & Matthew Polisson & Ludovic Renou, 2015. "Revealed preferences over risk and uncertainty," Economics Series Working Papers 740, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

Reference 3: John Quah & Hiroki Nishimura & Efe A. Ok, 2013. "A Unified Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: The Case of Rational Choice," Economics Series Working Papers 686, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a soft introduction or another article

I understand that this article is about an old economic theory but its much too narrow and its very dry. Either another article is needed on the popular use of "Revealed Preference" or this article needs expansion.

Revealed preferences is a general term used to describe the way that people actually behave compared with the way they typically describe or present their behaviour (Expressed preference). Due to social, religious,cultural standards, general concerns about privacy or desire to manipulate others people often feel uncomfortable about expressing their true behaviour. Sometimes they themselves are unaware of their true behaviour. Sometimes they just lie. There is a human tendency to promote how we want to be perceived. This means interviews, and consumption and behaviour surveys have limited use in determining actual behaviour. This can have a huge impact on government spending, healthcare, insurance, advertising, new product launch. Examples are pornography where few people admit to consumption yet a multi billion dollar global business exists, and health care where people significantly over estimate the exercise they take and underestimate their consumption of food and alcohol.

I'd argue that the "free" social media companies like Google, Facebook have built their entire revenue business on the offer of exposing revealed preferences whether they are successful at it or not. The general use of loyalty cards, location tracking, tracking cookies, Bluetooth beacons are designed to build behaviour profiles to allow targeted and specific advertising based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfual (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]