From kragen@dnaco.net Fri Aug 21 16:28:26 1998
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kragen <kragen@dnaco.net>
To: leonf@magnolia.net
Subject: Re: SOCIETY'S EFFORTS TO CORRECT THE PARADOX
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980821155131.21889E-100000@picard.dnaco.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1330
Status: O
X-Status: 

In http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/xvp-6.html, you say:
	Not only do we have trouble estimating the true probabilities,
	but we, in fact, tend to be biased in our estimates. Humans, if
	given a choice, tend to take a sure thing over a probable
	expectation even if the expected value is higher for the
	probable event. See this essay on "Decision Making" for a
	discussion.

(btw, the link to "Decision Making" takes me to www.psych.nwu.edu,
which redirects me to pangaea.pratt.edu, which doesn't answer at the
moment.)

This may, in fact, be rational under some circumstances.  For instance,
I'd much rather have an assured monthly income of $2,000 than a
one-in-a-thousand chance each month of getting $2,000,000 (assuming I
have no other income.)  I think this is because my utility function is
decidedly nonlinear -- the utility of $2,000 a month is much, much
more, perhaps 1,000 times more, than the utility of $0 a month.  ($0 a
month would probably kill me in less than a year -- again, assuming I
had no other income, and I'd probably finagle some somehow.  Assume for
the purpose of the argument that I agreed in good faith to forego any
other income in return for the chance at the $2 million, and would keep
to that agreement even unto death.  On the other hand, I can live
comfortably for several decades, perhaps even a century, on $2,000 a
month.)  On the other hand, the utility of $2,000,000 is perhaps 10
times the utility of $2,000.

So my expected utility from the monthly one-in-a-thousand $2,000,000 is
maybe a hundredth my expected utility from the assured monthly $2,000,
even though my expected monthly income is exactly the same.

(Not that I'm arguing that people are perfectly rational -- just that
what appears to be an irrational choice when analyzed on the basis of
expected payoffs may, in fact, be a rational choice when the nonlinear
relation between payoffs and actual utility is taken into account, and
expected utility is analyzed instead of expected payoffs.)

Kragen
-- 
<kragen@pobox.com>       Kragen Sitaker     <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
We are forming cells within a global brain and we are excited that we might
start to think collectively.  What becomes of us still hangs crucially on
how we think individually.  -- Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web


