{"id":11973,"date":"2022-05-20T03:02:06","date_gmt":"2022-05-20T10:02:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11973"},"modified":"2022-05-20T03:16:10","modified_gmt":"2022-05-20T10:16:10","slug":"meta-preferences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11973","title":{"rendered":"Sexual [Meta]-Preferences"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>As I noted in <a href=\"?p=6140\">an earlier &#39blog entry<\/a>, I use the words <q>choice<\/q> and <q>choose<\/q> simply to refer to <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">selection<\/span>; and, when I say that someone <q>prefers<\/q> <var>X<\/var> to <var>Y<\/var>, I mean that if given a set of mutually exclusive options that include <var>X<\/var> and <var>Y<\/var> then <var>Y<\/var> will never be selected.  Some people <em>try<\/em> to mean something else by one or both of these terms.  In the case of <q>choose<\/q>, they seldom if ever explain what that something might be.  R[obert] Duncan Luce proposed to define <q>preference<\/q> in terms of <em>probability<\/em> of selection, rather than in an absolute manner as do I; that difference won't bear meaningfully upon what I have to say here.<\/p> <p>One might have preferences <em>about<\/em> one's preferences.  For example, preferring-not-to-prefer simultaneously <var>X<\/var> to <var>Y<\/var>, <var>Y<\/var> to <var>Z<\/var>, and <var>Z<\/var> to <var>X<\/var> for any <var>X<\/var>, <var>Y<\/var>, and <var>Z<\/var>.  But note that <em>making<\/em> choices based upon the preferences that one <em>has<\/em> is <em>different<\/em> from <em>choosing<\/em> to have the preferences with which one makes the choice.  Choices about preferences are <em>meta<\/em>-choices; preferences determining meta-choices are <em>meta<\/em>-preferences.<\/p> <p>In theory, all choices could be determined by preferences, all preferences could be meta-chosen, all meta-choices could be determined by meta-preferences, all meta-preferences could be meta-meta-chosen, all meta-meta-choices could be determined by meta-meta-preferences, &amp;c out to any <em>finite<\/em> level of <em>meta<\/em> that you might imagine.  But the levelling cannot be <em>in<\/em>finite.  At some point, one reaches a level that <em>wasn't<\/em> chosen.  Varieties of choices and preferences that are <q>turtles all the way down<\/q> are an impossibility.  A class of choices cannot have any members if it is defined such that each member is <em>underlain<\/em> by a choice of that same class.  Likewise for preferences.<\/p> <p>And hence I come to the expression <q>sexual preference<\/q>.   As introduced and still generally to-day, it refers to what one sexually prefers; it says <em>nothing<\/em> about what one <em>meta<\/em>-prefers or <em>meta<\/em>-chooses.  People said to have sexual preferences are thereby said to choose <em>with<\/em> those preferences, not to have chosen the preferences themselves.  Someone said to have heterosexual preferences is not thus said to have chosen heterosexuality itself, and so too of someone said to have homosexual preferences.  And if we deny that sexual preferences can be <q>real<\/q> because they are not underlain by a choice of sexual orientation, then we must claim that all <em>non<\/em>-sexual preferences are likewise not <q>real<\/q>, because it's <em>never<\/em> turtles-all-the-way-down.<\/p> <p>The only people who will be <em>offended<\/em> by the term <q>sexual preference<\/q> itself will have confused preferences with meta-preferences &mdash; or will be those people who have simply embraced the claim that the term is offensive without much thought as to why it should be so.  And a rather large group will not actually be offended, but will r&ocirc;le-play as if offended, because they observe that this behavior is the practice of their political tribe.<\/p> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As I noted in an earlier &#39blog entry, I use the words choice and choose simply to refer to selection; and, when I say that someone prefers X to Y, I mean that if given a set of mutually exclusive options that include X and Y then Y will never be selected. Some people try [&hellip;]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,117,29,318,4,100],"tags":[1546,947,1633,1589,989,1634],"class_list":["post-11973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-communication","category-disturbing-the-peace","category-ethics-philosophy","category-public","category-sexology","tag-choice","tag-definitions","tag-meta-choice","tag-meta-preferences","tag-preferences","tag-sexual-preference"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11973"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11973\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11978,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11973\/revisions\/11978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}