Jump to content

The Portal Wiki

Toggle the table of contents

Preference Falsification: Difference between revisions

From The Portal Wiki

Latest revision as of 03:48, 11 March 2026

Preference falsification is a theory brought forth by Timur Kuran in his book Private Truths, Public Lies. It is the act of misrepresenting one's wants under perceived social pressures, and it deliberately aims to disguise one's motivations and dispositions.

Eric contends that the theory of Preference Falsification is Intellectual Kryptonite. "Because your theory can be accommodated within the standard theory... the problem is that it is a ready made upgrade to the existing theory in which nothing is lost but new degrees of freedom are gained; and that could have an absolutely unpredictable effect on the entire field because it is at the level of the substrate." #4 Prof. Timur Kuran @ 1:08:40

On X[edit]

2011[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

A gentle hint to study the mathematics of preference falsification is given by Timur Kuran via the revolutions of 2011: http://bit.ly/f6bhjE

3:30 AM · Feb 23, 2011

2018[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

If you want to know what’s happening here in real-time, you could do worse than to study the off-beat Turkish Economist @timurkuran and his theory of abrupt “Preference Falsification”-mediated phase change.

My party (the Democrats) won’t listen ... until it’s too late. Pity. https://t.co/5YSNXObhZ4

10:50 PM · Apr 25, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

Advertisers vs Riskvertisers:

An advertiser is a company commandeering attention to promote a product. A riskvertiser, by contrast, would be a courageous firm that underwrites important speech others wish to ban, and asks the public to consider its product in return for courage.

5:07 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

The following is an (unauthorized) RISKVERTISMENT for @DrBronner.

I love DR BRONNER soap! Their luxurious Castille soaps are no less amazing than their corporate bravery in support of Psychedelic Research on substances which are currently illegal!

RewardCourage #Riskvertise.

5:07 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

We the public and the creators need to stop supporting advertisers who buckle to sanctimonious mobs out of cowardice when the charges are frivolous.

More importantly, WE need to lead and build the Riskvertising industry. Let’s reward those companies that treat us as adults.

5:07 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

If you know of other firms that don’t buckle under pressure and who are interested in underwriting free speech, psychedelic research, and other unpopular worthy causes, please let me know! Let’s experiment with paying it forward until we find underwriters who don’t cut &run.

🙏

5:07 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@AndyHoelter Not about Tucker.

5:24 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@Respecticles Super interesting. Hadn’t seen it. Thanks!

5:26 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@mic_p_dre I see the need. Hence the theory.

5:26 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

And note: this isn’t about Tucker. It’s about general ambient pressure that seems more about sanctimony than ethics.

5:28 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@AndyHoelter I have not only boycotted products, I have organized boycotts of advertisers myself. And I would do so again. I think perhaps we aren’t connecting intellectually here.

5:34 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@B_Salvi I didn’t love Tucker’s remarks. This isn’t about Tucker. It’s a very general issue now.

5:36 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@B_Salvi I respect your thinking and remarks. I’m in a slightly different place but see your perspective and want to acknowledge it’s validity.

5:51 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@B_Salvi Too complicated for Twitter. It has to do with bad actors driving costs via preference falsification.

6:12 PM · Dec 21, 2018

@EricRWeinstein

@DatsuChris @DSgear @RubinReport @jordanbpeterson I want to hear more about your story.

6:06 AM · Dec 22, 2018

2019[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

Wow. Thank you Jonathan.

Predictably, The Portal featured on almost no mainstream “Best of 2019” lists w/ our amazing roster of guests as we grow in size with actual listeners & get great people.

Hopefully we will be no less acceptable in 2020. Pirate radio is the place to be.

3:44 PM · Dec 18, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

@Megadogyourmom4 With all my respect, the issue isn’t numbers. It’s who is listening. We aren’t exactly doing gaming, makeup tips and sports commentary. When you are talking spinors and preference falsification It’s amazing anyone is listening.

4:54 PM · Dec 18, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

@garyHeff @tylercowen Remember this tweet as we go on.

5:08 PM · Dec 18, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

@4rt_yy It’s interesting how you parsed this.

What makes this “not mainstream” is not controversy. It’s talking about hard issues like gauge theory in economics as a means to stop wealth transfers from CPI hacking as we touched on in this episode. Hopefully it is *not* a shock show. 🙏

5:17 PM · Dec 18, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

@podcastnotes Nooooo! You are ruining a near perfect record. Breaker also screwed it up however.

7:39 PM · Dec 18, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

@4rt_yy Again. Weird parse.

No. Mostly we never get to the good stuff. We spend so much time worrying about hand holding that we never get to higher topics. People don’t even know they are there to be learned.

7:41 PM · Dec 18, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

@podcastnotes Whew!!

9:01 PM · Dec 18, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

@podcastnotes And thanks for the kind words.

9:01 PM · Dec 18, 2019

2020[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

For those of you who do not understand why I am not counting @AndrewYang out, go back to @timurkuran’s appearance on the Portal: the more Yang can show that the polls, pundits & party are wrong, the more people will switch their votes to him. Let’s imagine he gets past Warren...

3:29 AM · Jan 24, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

...And, just to make this fit in a tweet, let’s imagine that one of the two older candidates stumbles for health reasons & gets sidelined. Then what? Yang would be number 2. Think about that. That’s when the whole “fringe candidate” & “novelty” narrative would actually backfire.

3:29 AM · Jan 24, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

This is why @timurkuran and his theory of preference falsification is so important! This is how things can shift quickly and why normies miss this possibility. Learn the logic of how the mainstream can sometimes get it so wrong. This is now within reach:

https://t.co/X8Nx86yTC0

3:29 AM · Jan 24, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

How could someone who doesn’t get airtime because they aren’t “serious” to the media be number 3? This is what happened with Trump and Obama and Bernie: the narrative backfires when the media spell breaks. Which is now quite possible. And that breaking will show up as new voters.

3:29 AM · Jan 24, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

@mvttxiii @timurkuran That’s why we put it up front. It leads to a surprising conclusion. No one sees the effect coming because it is not every day as well as its non linear nature.

3:43 AM · Jan 24, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

@jjpinkard1 @AndrewYang @timurkuran Ah. I remember Lehman Brothers, Obama over Clinton, the Bernie Surge, Trump in 2016 and Brexit too.

Now I get things very wrong. But what I am saying is that this is now merely unlikely. But It’s not “one in a million”. Neither of us really know.

3:48 AM · Jan 24, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

I’m not delusional here. As anyone who follows this feed knows, I’m far more interested in the issue of ending “The Truman Show” than in who becomes president. There are three candidates that challenge the party leadership: Tulsi, Yang & Sanders. Yang has only one possible path.

8:53 PM · Feb 03, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

But that’s how this would explode IF possible. Frankly, I don’t see another path. It’s a *very* long shot. But the one thing that‘s been truly weird is the amount of credibility that MSM spent on #YangMediaBlackout. It may have stopped him from polling higher, but at great cost.

8:53 PM · Feb 03, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

I don’t see this for Tulsi, and Sanders has already ridden such a wave from 2016. So the question is simple.

Q: Are enough Yang supporters:

A) Invisible to Polls

and/or

B) Contingent on realism concerns

and/or

C) Lying about supporting Biden/Sanders Warren.

I don’t know.

8:53 PM · Feb 03, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

It is very simple. The MSM and DNC have been VERY effective at killing off the sense he *can* win. For Yang to take off, he would need to ride a wave of preference falsification. For example, if he did twice as well as expected for a while, the polls would become suspect to all.

8:53 PM · Feb 03, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

I’ve been focused on this since before 2016 and this is why @timurkuran was my 3rd interview. This is about the potential energy that can be stored in a system. I can’t measure it for you. No one can.

But my thinking has been here in the open for months:

https://t.co/X8Nx86yTC0

8:53 PM · Feb 03, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

The only way that makes sense is if:

A) He once had a chance which is now gone due to the finger on the scales via #YangMediaBlackout

Or

B) Media knows that he’s still got hidden support as per the above.

But I’m not playing pick the winner. I’m focused on #EndTheTrumanShow

8:53 PM · Feb 03, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

In 2016 you told me that Trump couldn’t win. I pointed you to the @timurkuran and the theory of Preference Falsification.

In 2020 I’m telling you that the *pandemic* makes it possible to dislodge Biden. But:

A) You would have to deeply care. B) Your window will soon close.

6:35 PM · May 06, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

@einselection @timurkuran No. Resignation. He needs to be pressured to resign.

6:59 PM · May 06, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

This is representative of an important class of tweets for understanding preference falsification in the theory of @timurkuran with its effects on polling.

When open support for any candidate leads to to immediate dissolution of relationships, there will be an effect on polls.

10:20 PM · Sep 26, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

I’m not saying this isn’t a principled stand as I don’t know these people. What I am talking about is people threatening to cease all interaction and the effect on our political sentiment data.

10:24 PM · Sep 26, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

Looking forward to discussing @timurkuran and the theory of preference falsification with all of the news organizations that don’t talk to me anymore: @CNN @NPR @nytimes etc...

Or you smarties can just double down. Again. And again. And again.

Take your pick.

4:16 AM · Nov 04, 2020

@EricRWeinstein

@timurkuran @CNN @NPR @nytimes Not calling the winner yet of course. Calling the polls as likely being off due to preference falsification. Trump is at least beating the point spread at a minimum. So far.

4:29 AM · Nov 04, 2020

2021[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

At the beginning of The Portal I introduced you to @timurkuran & his theory of preference falsification.

This year I want to introduce you to Prof. @jjfreydcourage and her theory of Institutional Betrayal. It will change your understanding of everything.

https://t.co/4fE3pmwGYc

7:44 PM · Jan 10, 2021

@EricRWeinstein

I have spoken to Jennifer who I last saw in the 1980s. I insisted we boost her theory and she agreed to let me introduce you to her. This is one of the most complicated and important stories that no one is tracking at an appropriate level.

This article is backstory. Pls Read it.

7:44 PM · Jan 10, 2021

@EricRWeinstein

Dear @lsarsour, @AOC, @nhannahjones, @DrIbram, @RashidaTlaib, @ezraklein, @CBSEntDiversity, @OpenSociety.

Genuinely interested in trying to get at whether there’s broad support for a DEI agenda. Would you consider running this poll w/ your followers or alerting them to this one?

2:07 PM · Oct 20, 2021

@EricRWeinstein

Feel free to editorialize if you think this is outrageous/biased. I just want to figure out the level of preference falsification. Are folks really excited about DEI? If so, let’s find out. If not, let’s find out. I’d be honored if you’d run this same question as you see fit.🙏

2:07 PM · Oct 20, 2021

@EricRWeinstein

Almost 10k accounts have voted, and there is plenty of time as there are still >8 hours to go. I can’t get fully rid of follower bias in my own account of course, but you could conduct the same poll in your own account if you are as curious as to the level of support as I am.

2:07 PM · Oct 20, 2021

2022[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

1) General Relativity 2) (Pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry 3) Quantum Field Theory 4) Material Science/Condensed Matter 5) Nuclear Physics/Weaponry 6) Disinformation Theory 7) Cult Indoctrination/Deprogramming 8) Propaganda 9) Preference Falsification Theory 10) Mansfield Amendment

10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

11) Science Policy Theory (V Bush) 12) Selection (Abstracted) 13) Comparative Eschatology 14) Anti-Gravity Pseudo-science involving top physicists and mathematicians in the era of the So-Called ‘Golden age of General Relativity’. 15) GU 16) Mind control.

Remember: you asked! ;-)

10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@zlabrah Selection. Natural, Sexual and memetic. As above.

10:10 PM · Oct 12, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@IsDrainBamaged I tried at the beginning. Then I realized I forgot some stuff.

10:13 PM · Oct 12, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@AndrewJayabc It is spread out over 1,2, 3 and 4. Right at the top. Look.

10:21 PM · Oct 12, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@GambleDale @Manning123Sm Wow! Thanks for asking Dale. 1969…but 1973 is closely related.

Nobody gets this anymore. It’s like talking to the wind. Thanks for spotting that entry. Truly.

11:25 PM · Oct 12, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@DontsitDJ Such as?

11:26 PM · Oct 12, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@GambleDale @Manning123Sm I got it immediately. Stay in touch? Thx.

12:34 AM · Oct 13, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@HDinthesky Map. The Schwartzchild and Robertson Walker singularities indicate it is the map. Plus some other stuff.

12:36 AM · Oct 13, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@getalongyoufool 12)

Above. 👆

5:58 AM · Oct 13, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@CriticalReview9 Of the endless frontier. But yes.

5:59 AM · Oct 13, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

@BakuDreamer Weird. It was a big deal. And it has disappeared from memory.

1:30 PM · Oct 13, 2022

2023[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

@cvaldary Well, one thing we all need to do Chloe is come up with new cognitive primitives. I introduce a lot of these. But the next stage will be organizing to resist being coerced towards extremes. We certainly can't afford a normalization of extremist politics with such powerful tech.

2:36 AM · Jan 10, 2023

@EricRWeinstein

@cvaldary Sure. I have been pretty active in emphasizing the following;

GIN Kayfabe Russell Conjugation DISC E.G.O. Preference Falsification Audience Capture My Four Quadrant Model Anthropic Capitalism IDW

There are a lot. Some as with the above are due to others.

8:14 PM · Jan 10, 2023

2024[edit]

@EricRWeinstein

This *is* what science looks like right now.

Does this sound like real science? Even at a passing level? Just see. Read it.

“People studying misinformation lean left for two reasons:”

Extraordinary claim. Supported by….? I mean…Huge if true! I would have thought there would be complicated effects of political economy in science funding as well. But there is no discussion of any such effects.

It’s just two causes. Who knew.

“1. scientists lean left, regardless of specialty, because they care about facts.”

I mean….damn. I don’t even understand the argument. It feels like “because” is doing all the work here.

No discussion of history (e.g. The Mansfield Amendment), incentive structures, institutional dependence. Just a bald assertion known as an appeal to authority. The author is a professor, after all. . “2. misinformation today primarily comes from the Right ("they're eating the dawwwgs!") which makes it worth studying and fighting against for people leaning left.”

Appeal to ridicule. Strawmanning. Yes, Donald Trump is no scientist.

But the Institutional Left has been wrong all over the place, no? On sex, heritability, public health, viral origins, migration externalities, and prediction of elections via failure to adjust for preference falsification at scale.

What is this? I don’t know. It’s not the science you grew up witb that changed everything and illuminated the world.

My point is not to vilify Dr LeCun. It is to point out what institutional science NOW looks like. It used to look totally different.

But in 2024, it looks like exactly like this.

This tweet ⬇️ below. Learn to spot it.

12:24 AM · Sep 21, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

I will be surprised if it is close, due to preference shielding and preference falsification. I don’t know what evidence you are privileging.

[How @timurkuran is not one of the world’s most famous economic & social welfare theorists is beyond me. It’s simply an elite ‘error’.]

3:31 AM · Nov 05, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

If you are indeed looking for a landslide and the polls are close, vote and take heart. I made Prof. Kuran one of my very first guests because he totally changed my understanding of our world through an effect that turned out to be anything but small:

3:37 AM · Nov 05, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

@SweatEm @timurkuran Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s close…🤷‍♀️

But I don’t think we have polling that accurately adjusts for preference falsification. It’s kind of an amazing and large effect that seems almost deliberately neglected within neoclassical economics and social welfare theory.

4:05 AM · Nov 05, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

Are you also watching the brain trust of tbe Democratic Party who lost this election, now trying to figure out HOW they could possibly have lost this election?

As a highly visible Democrat who never thought this was going to be close or a “nail biter”, and who said publicly that the the polls were off and that there was reason to think that preference falsification could result in a *landslide*, do you think anyone would pick up the phone and call? There is zero interest. Not one intern. Not one consultant.

This is exactly like String Theory. For 40 years string theorists have hermetically sealed themselves in an imaginary universe where they are succeeding because they became the arbiters in a system called Peer Review. The Lords/Peers of String Theory do not talk with, and do not listen to commoners. As a result they enter into a curricular conversation.

Listening to what @maddow has to say about @KamalaHarris’ part in @SpeakerPelosi’s brilliant strategy with @PeteButtigieg to help @SenSchumer after @donlemon’s insightful analysis mirroring Joy @thereidout brutal truths following the @NPR @cnn exposes of Trumps devious plans is exactly the String theory vibe.

What does Cumrun say about Andy’s latest idea to build on Lenny’s insight to get around Eva’s paper showing that Ashok’s plan to use Juan’s discovery that Brian and Michio discussed recently on the 13th anniversary of Shamit’s paper tweaking David’s original epiphany, can only work if some speculations of Cumrun are true to begin with in Euclidean signature?

Oh and by the way, there are no other approaches beyond String Theory, because anyone not part of this circle is a self promoter saying “only words”. We will only need another 100 years before it gives fruit…

Well, this is what a cult sounds like. Communists build such elaborate circular worlds of internal references. As do members of spiritual, academic and religious orders.

My claim is that the Democratic leadership is a lucrative cult. It’s not a party. It’s not trying to win. It’s trying to serve its members and work towards winning as little as possible, consistent with first serving the personal needs of its senior leadership. It’s trying to pay its leadership in riches, prestige and control. It’s a payout system. What are all these people making financially? I don’t know. Nancy does alright. So does Rachel. But not all payment is monetary.

That is why their conversation is so bizarre. They need to fire each other. But the entire point of our party as they see it is to serve as a trough.

Take it from a pre-Dick Morris Democrat also focused on physics: the 1992 election 32 years ago brought us this madness in just the way that Ed Witten, Michael Green and John Schwarz brought us The Holy Revelation of String Theory 40 years ago in 1984.

The most important part of these cults is sealing out the critics as “interloping self promoting grifting charlatans.”

I wound love to come on MSNBC and discuss my pre-election claims that this was unlikely to be close and quite possibly a landslide. I would love to help the party fire its senior leadership. It is well past time to overthrow the party’s brain trust that leads us away from focusing on the welfare of working families, free speech, individualistic greatness, common sense, consumer protection, fair play, and into the arms of evil and madness.

The Clinton-Morris era needs to end. We need a revolt to overthrow our Lords and Masters. There is now no reason these people should be at the helm.

None.

🙏

4:54 PM · Nov 09, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

@I_Hippocrite @mises Never been invited so I don’t know much about you.

5:00 PM · Nov 09, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

@ericcorbello @Charles32615710 Thanks Brother. Prefer to work with you. Lots to be done. And congratulations.

5:20 PM · Nov 09, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

Not really. It’s not a psychological thing. It’s this frustration that EVERYTHING has become team sports.

I’m looking to retain my independence, so the pickup game analogy is a good one.

I’m an individualist looking to caucus with others and frustrated by the emphasis on team purity.

Imagine a free soloist rock climber trying to talk to a football team about how to scale a tall building to retrieve their ball from the roof. He wants to help but doesn’t want to become a linebacker.

5:39 PM · Nov 09, 2024

@EricRWeinstein

@PlanRightDave @Charles32615710 Right wing cancel culture is so weird. Thanks brother.

5:56 PM · Nov 09, 2024

See Also[edit]

This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/index.php?title=Preference_Falsification&oldid=26344"