Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

False choice

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 12:48:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am not sure where to put it, because this is basically a shot in the dark, but I think this is the closest thing to an answer.

Is there a fancy philosophical theory for the phenomenon of false choice? I am trying to come up with an argument that even though technically some people have the 'autonomy' to do certain things, the cost associated with their decisions is too high for them to effectively have a choice. For example, firing people- even if you have an autonomy of 'firing' people, you usually can't just fire people; because the cost associated with firing is too high. ( Looking for a substitute, and the resulting negative working environment and things like that).

Is there a fancy philosophical theory explaining this... phenomenon? I'm trying to completely grasp this concept. Perhaps a philosopher who argued something along these lines?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 12:51:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 12:48:24 PM, Cermank wrote:
I am not sure where to put it, because this is basically a shot in the dark, but I think this is the closest thing to an answer.

Is there a fancy philosophical theory for the phenomenon of false choice? I am trying to come up with an argument that even though technically some people have the 'autonomy' to do certain things, the cost associated with their decisions is too high for them to effectively have a choice. For example, firing people- even if you have an autonomy of 'firing' people, you usually can't just fire people; because the cost associated with firing is too high. ( Looking for a substitute, and the resulting negative working environment and things like that).

I'm trying to completely grasp this concept. Perhaps a philosopher who argued something along these lines?

Oh fvck, redundancy. I'm sorry, a little messed up in the head right now.

fixed.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 12:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've never seen it completely worked out. Though I agree with yer point.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 12:57:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 12:55:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen it completely worked out. Though I agree with yer point.

Yer point being here:

...that even though technically some people have the 'autonomy' to do certain things, the cost associated with their decisions is too high for them to effectively have a choice.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 12:58:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 12:55:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen it completely worked out. Though I agree with yer point.

Is there some written work I can look at? Has someone argued for/ against that point?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:00:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
tulle and I were calling that the Lost Phenomenon because the show constantly presents characters with false choices despite emphasizing the importance of choice. Sure, you can decide not to go with the Man in Black...but he'll kill you. You can definitely leave the island...but you're coming back. You should totally go back in time...and change nothing lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:04:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:00:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:
tulle and I were calling that the Lost Phenomenon because the show constantly presents characters with false choices despite emphasizing the importance of choice. Sure, you can decide not to go with the Man in Black...but he'll kill you. You can definitely leave the island...but you're coming back. You should totally go back in time...and change nothing lol

You people and lost. It's an epidemic. Though I'm mildly curious about the show now it has some relevance to the theory I'm trying to formulate. -_-
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:07:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:04:35 PM, benevolent wrote:
What is this in relevance to?

My premise that the private companies don't really have the autonomy of hiring and firing vis a vis government companies. A little deep than that, but that'd do lol.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:08:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:04:55 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:00:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:
tulle and I were calling that the Lost Phenomenon because the show constantly presents characters with false choices despite emphasizing the importance of choice. Sure, you can decide not to go with the Man in Black...but he'll kill you. You can definitely leave the island...but you're coming back. You should totally go back in time...and change nothing lol

You people and lost. It's an epidemic. Though I'm mildly curious about the show now it has some relevance to the theory I'm trying to formulate. -_-

Have I ever steered you wrong?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:28:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This sounds a bit game-theoretic to me, or maybe more decision-theoretic, involving utility, risk, and loss functions, some Bayesian procedures; all that stuff. These tools are used to describe models of something like the "deterministic volition" of practical agents which you seem to mention.

I might recommend looking at some work on behavioral economics, but often their study doesn't seem satisfactory in addressing questions such as yours. After pages and pages of reading about expected values and Pareto efficiency, I set down the book and think tormentedly: "But I can still punch anyone I'd like. In fact, I think I'll punch myself. *Ouch* What's more, I could just begin walking at any time until I reach the ocean and then begin swimming until I die at sea; I could become a vegetarian right now."

But can I, really? If I don't, then does this suggest that I couldn't?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not really sure, googling stuff and all, but maybe this can be explained using the Morton's fork example? That a person is not performing well, either he can be fired (which is unpleasant for the employer and the work environment), or he can be allowed to work, which is again unpleasant for the employer because his work quality falls. So, he will avoid firing as far as possible, (other than if he can't bear the cost) and try to make him improve his performance. And that saying that a boss can fire someone if he isn't performing is a false choice, because there is a (pleasant, and much less costly) middle ground.

I don't know if that's the correct use of that theory.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:37:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:28:22 PM, Poetaster wrote:
This sounds a bit game-theoretic to me, or maybe more decision-theoretic, involving utility, risk, and loss functions, some Bayesian procedures; all that stuff. These tools are used to describe models of something like the "deterministic volition" of practical agents which you seem to mention.

Ooh yeah. Economics. That's a little closer to my domain. That can be done. Haven't really ever used it in real life, though. I don't really know how to quantitate the utility and costs of the problem. Won't that be arbitrary?

I might recommend looking at some work on behavioral economics, but often their study doesn't seem satisfactory in addressing questions such as yours. After pages and pages of reading about expected values and Pareto efficiency, I set down the book and think tormentedly: "But I can still punch anyone I'd like. In fact, I think I'll punch myself. *Ouch* What's more, I could just begin walking at any time until I reach the ocean and then begin swimming until I die at sea; I could become a vegetarian right now."

But can I, really? If I don't, then does this suggest that I couldn't?

Ha. Nah. That just provides you with the optimum solution. GIVEN your preferences, you'd chose this specific choice, because that provides you with the maximum utility. You can still chose anything else, going against your assumed preferences.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:44:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wouldn't say poor options preclude them from possibility, but rather makes any statement predicated on the existent of there being a choice unreasonable insofar as the other options aren't conducive to an outcome which is more preferable than doing nothing all together.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:46:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!

What? These people pretty much believe that the more spontaneous (i.e. individually orchestrated) a system, the better/more moral it will be. This is exactly what you're getting at, I think.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:53:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:44:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I wouldn't say poor options preclude them from possibility, but rather makes any statement predicated on the existent of there being a choice unreasonable insofar as the other options aren't conducive to an outcome which is more preferable than doing nothing all together.

Exactly. So the threat of 'firing' isn't really as much an incentive to work, because that's really the last resort an employer would take. Because it isn't really a good policy tool.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:57:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:46:38 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!

What? These people pretty much believe that the more spontaneous (i.e. individually orchestrated) a system, the better/more moral it will be. This is exactly what you're getting at, I think.

No, I'm actually arguing for the opposite. That BECAUSE the threat of firing isn't that... strong, the possibility of getting fired isn't really an incentive for workers to work. That if there is a government report evaluating individual performance, even though you can't get fired, because your promotion is indexed to your performance, that provides you with a strong enough incentive to perform. The incentive is comparable to that in the private sector.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:01:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:46:38 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!

What? These people pretty much believe that the more spontaneous (i.e. individually orchestrated) a system, the better/more moral it will be. This is exactly what you're getting at, I think.

Where these people fail in their thinking, I believe, however, is in that government might as well be viewed as a corporation is at all times, but especially in its conception - government is brought about spontaneously, just generally in a manner that establishes a greater permanence. Abolish government, however, and it will rise spontaneously again, and perhaps because individually orchestrated, to the detriment of the vast majority of us. Consider Hitler and his revolutionizing German industry. Whatever happened to "by the people, for the people?"
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:03:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:57:43 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:46:38 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!

What? These people pretty much believe that the more spontaneous (i.e. individually orchestrated) a system, the better/more moral it will be. This is exactly what you're getting at, I think.

No, I'm actually arguing for the opposite. That BECAUSE the threat of firing isn't that... strong, the possibility of getting fired isn't really an incentive for workers to work. That if there is a government report evaluating individual performance, even though you can't get fired, because your promotion is indexed to your performance, that provides you with a strong enough incentive to perform. The incentive is comparable to that in the private sector.

Oh. I thought you were arguing against corrupt government...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:04:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:53:33 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:44:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I wouldn't say poor options preclude them from possibility, but rather makes any statement predicated on the existent of there being a choice unreasonable insofar as the other options aren't conducive to an outcome which is more preferable than doing nothing all together.

Exactly. So the threat of 'firing' isn't really as much an incentive to work, because that's really the last resort an employer would take. Because it isn't really a good policy tool.

Well, a threat beyond what an employer has capacity to afford might not be (assuming they're rational), but falling into the territory when the threat would take effect would mean your weren't doing a good job anyway, in which case your replacement might be justified in their eyes. So the threat is essentially "If you do poor enough of a job in which this threat would apply, it's time to leave anyway."
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:06:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:37:41 PM, Cermank wrote:
Ooh yeah. Economics. That's a little closer to my domain. That can be done. Haven't really ever used it in real life, though. I don't really know how to quantitate the utility and costs of the problem. Won't that be arbitrary?

It may be. The question of which models to use is a matter of pre-theoretic argument external to those models; it's where the real scuffles takes place.

Ha. Nah. That just provides you with the optimum solution. GIVEN your preferences, you'd chose this specific choice, because that provides you with the maximum utility. You can still chose anything else, going against your assumed preferences.

Yes, but it seems I couldn't defy my own preference set all at once. Otherwise, that very act would be inexplicable; unmediated by any preference operation or value function whatsoever.

Maybe a total value scheme change is more like the Ship of Thesueus: I could supplant and remove one or two preferences at a time until a complete renovation of the original is achieved. But even this seems unsettlingly ouroboric to me: the self-eating serpent can't consume itself entirely. What would I become after this value transformation; could I formally remain the same agent in the end?

Now I'm curious to know whether a complete preference mutation could be coherently and formally modeled.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:07:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 2:03:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:57:43 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:46:38 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!

What? These people pretty much believe that the more spontaneous (i.e. individually orchestrated) a system, the better/more moral it will be. This is exactly what you're getting at, I think.

No, I'm actually arguing for the opposite. That BECAUSE the threat of firing isn't that... strong, the possibility of getting fired isn't really an incentive for workers to work. That if there is a government report evaluating individual performance, even though you can't get fired, because your promotion is indexed to your performance, that provides you with a strong enough incentive to perform. The incentive is comparable to that in the private sector.

Oh. I thought you were arguing against corrupt government...

Lol, I am. But not here. There's corruption in private sector too.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:13:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 2:07:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 2:03:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:57:43 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:46:38 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!

What? These people pretty much believe that the more spontaneous (i.e. individually orchestrated) a system, the better/more moral it will be. This is exactly what you're getting at, I think.

No, I'm actually arguing for the opposite. That BECAUSE the threat of firing isn't that... strong, the possibility of getting fired isn't really an incentive for workers to work. That if there is a government report evaluating individual performance, even though you can't get fired, because your promotion is indexed to your performance, that provides you with a strong enough incentive to perform. The incentive is comparable to that in the private sector.

Oh. I thought you were arguing against corrupt government...

Lol, I am. But not here. There's corruption in private sector too.

I'd say the corruption is more where monopolies have pretty much been established, though, with tyrannical CEOs and such. I don't think society has much pity on slackers, certainly not so much so that it would kill someone's business to want to run it properly anyway.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:15:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 2:13:51 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 2:07:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 2:03:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:57:43 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:46:38 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:42:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:32:36 PM, benevolent wrote:
This touches on it maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree, though.

That's actually really helpful. I don't know how to relate this to the autonomy of private players, but this would be perfect for proving the negation of my premise. Thanks!

What? These people pretty much believe that the more spontaneous (i.e. individually orchestrated) a system, the better/more moral it will be. This is exactly what you're getting at, I think.

No, I'm actually arguing for the opposite. That BECAUSE the threat of firing isn't that... strong, the possibility of getting fired isn't really an incentive for workers to work. That if there is a government report evaluating individual performance, even though you can't get fired, because your promotion is indexed to your performance, that provides you with a strong enough incentive to perform. The incentive is comparable to that in the private sector.

Oh. I thought you were arguing against corrupt government...

Lol, I am. But not here. There's corruption in private sector too.

I'd say the corruption is more where monopolies have pretty much been established, though, with tyrannical CEOs and such. I don't think society has much pity on slackers, certainly not so much so that it would kill someone's business to want to run it properly anyway.

as well as in our twisted, individualistic tendencies, that is.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 2:04:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:53:33 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:44:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I wouldn't say poor options preclude them from possibility, but rather makes any statement predicated on the existent of there being a choice unreasonable insofar as the other options aren't conducive to an outcome which is more preferable than doing nothing all together.

Exactly. So the threat of 'firing' isn't really as much an incentive to work, because that's really the last resort an employer would take. Because it isn't really a good policy tool.

Well, a threat beyond what an employer has capacity to afford might not be (assuming they're rational), but falling into the territory when the threat would take effect would mean your weren't doing a good job anyway, in which case your replacement might be justified in their eyes. So the threat is essentially "If you do poor enough of a job in which this threat would apply, it's time to leave anyway."

That's true. Contrast that with Public sector. If you're doing a bad enough job, you have evaluations and reports of the reason of your bad performance to the higher officials, which is embarrassing. So, you'd be IN an institution, trying to justify your bad performance. Which is worse than you being fired.

There's comparability, right?

[I have to convince a group of hardcore libertarians regarding this, so I'm trying to cover all grounds. This makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?]
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:28:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 2:16:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 2:04:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:53:33 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:44:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I wouldn't say poor options preclude them from possibility, but rather makes any statement predicated on the existent of there being a choice unreasonable insofar as the other options aren't conducive to an outcome which is more preferable than doing nothing all together.

Exactly. So the threat of 'firing' isn't really as much an incentive to work, because that's really the last resort an employer would take. Because it isn't really a good policy tool.

Well, a threat beyond what an employer has capacity to afford might not be (assuming they're rational), but falling into the territory when the threat would take effect would mean your weren't doing a good job anyway, in which case your replacement might be justified in their eyes. So the threat is essentially "If you do poor enough of a job in which this threat would apply, it's time to leave anyway."

That's true. Contrast that with Public sector. If you're doing a bad enough job, you have evaluations and reports of the reason of your bad performance to the higher officials, which is embarrassing. So, you'd be IN an institution, trying to justify your bad performance. Which is worse than you being fired.

There's comparability, right?

[I have to convince a group of hardcore libertarians regarding this, so I'm trying to cover all grounds. This makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?]

I don't get what you mean? How's that worse than being fired?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:29:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 2:06:35 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:37:41 PM, Cermank wrote:
Ooh yeah. Economics. That's a little closer to my domain. That can be done. Haven't really ever used it in real life, though. I don't really know how to quantitate the utility and costs of the problem. Won't that be arbitrary?

It may be. The question of which models to use is a matter of pre-theoretic argument external to those models; it's where the real scuffles takes place.

Oh. We had a basic course in Game theory last sem. We did the Bertrand and Cournot model for the monopolistic firms and stuff.

I thought we could use the payoff matrix thing, but then I realize it isn't really two people performing simultaneous action, no? It's a comparison between two people performing two actions and their individual utilities of performing that action and their costs.

Can we make a two by two matrix, we public players on horizontal axis, private players on vertical axis. The cost of firing would be the time/ effort of finding a new employee, and the down morale of the employees. [ Can we quantify this?]

A public player cannot fire, so the cost is the bad performance [can we have a measure of this?].


Ha. Nah. That just provides you with the optimum solution. GIVEN your preferences, you'd chose this specific choice, because that provides you with the maximum utility. You can still chose anything else, going against your assumed preferences.

Yes, but it seems I couldn't defy my own preference set all at once. Otherwise, that very act would be inexplicable; unmediated by any preference operation or value function whatsoever.

Maybe a total value scheme change is more like the Ship of Thesueus: I could supplant and remove one or two preferences at a time until a complete renovation of the original is achieved. But even this seems unsettlingly ouroboric to me: the self-eating serpent can't consume itself entirely. What would I become after this value transformation; could I formally remain the same agent in the end?

Now I'm curious to know whether a complete preference mutation could be coherently and formally modeled.

They'll have to be reflexive, transitive and complete. I doubt it, tbh.