People may reject the 'wisdom' of a theory about themselves and their decision making, if they sense it comes with unexamined conditions or an inappropriately narrow focus. We are all aware that the choices apparently on offer may be conditioned by factors we would not choose, such as the inanity of our politics and the mendacity of our leaders, to take an ever popular example. So it is indeed rational to reject any theory that encourages a choice without taking in the full background of that choice.
People have irrational subconscious drives that shape their behaviours in addition to conscious ones that are subject to rationality. Make people aware of the subconscious drives and let people decide if they want account for them. Eg a person is offered a funeral plan and economically it is a good deal but the subconscious does not want to deal with the death anxiety (see terror management theory) so they do not proceed because their put it out of their mind or have motivated reasoning to reduce the anxiety of death thoughts. If people, are aware if this, their see what is going on and can push through and make a good economic decision. If subconscious bias is predictable, then figure it on the theory. Good thinking here.
Isn't this expected/future utility?😊 But my Problem with this is our preference changing over time so we gotta somehow edit the model many times so basically we don't know what our future self wants.
If we were going to take Pascal's argument one step further couldnt we look at historical evidences to choose which god and or sacred text to believe? I have heard it said that the biblical prophecy in relation to Jesus coming defies all the odds and the probability he was God is exceptionally high, so high probability and high reward. Also from my perspective the biblical representation of human behavior is spot on and what would be the probability first century and much earlier farmers and fisherman were able to independently perfectly describe human behavior and nature. Thats pretty much what lead me to believe. Anyhow, great video!!!
Very interesting speech. However, i have to disagree on the fact that lack of knowledge can't be quantified using probabilities. There are methods to estimate upper and lower probabilities, so that the difference is called ambiguity (Dempster, 1967). If you have to make assumptions on something you don't know anything, you can say that the probability of occurence of a phenomenon is between 0 to 1. Anyway, i guess Gilboa knows about this and that he didn't talk about it to make a short video.
I know quite a bit about this field. Your comment interesting. He made many errors. Couldn’t even get pascals wager right. He said it’s a dominant strategy in all scenarios, then described expected value.
Even the simple fact that he's wager can be applied to anything, Zeus, Allah,ra and any infinite number of gods does that not mean his wager is not "always have one being the best out come" but that it's useless in any situation.
the main thing about audio SWALLOW is to level all audio so that SWALLOW every single sound SWALLOW SOUND OF SPIT NEAR LEFT REAR MOLAR is the same I CAN HEAR EVERY MOTION OF THIS MAN'S SPIT.
People may reject the 'wisdom' of a theory about themselves and their decision making, if they sense it comes with unexamined conditions or an inappropriately narrow focus. We are all aware that the choices apparently on offer may be conditioned by factors we would not choose, such as the inanity of our politics and the mendacity of our leaders, to take an ever popular example. So it is indeed rational to reject any theory that encourages a choice without taking in the full background of that choice.
People have irrational subconscious drives that shape their behaviours in addition to conscious ones that are subject to rationality. Make people aware of the subconscious drives and let people decide if they want account for them. Eg a person is offered a funeral plan and economically it is a good deal but the subconscious does not want to deal with the death anxiety (see terror management theory) so they do not proceed because their put it out of their mind or have motivated reasoning to reduce the anxiety of death thoughts. If people, are aware if this, their see what is going on and can push through and make a good economic decision. If subconscious bias is predictable, then figure it on the theory. Good thinking here.
Isn't this expected/future utility?😊 But my Problem with this is our preference changing over time so we gotta somehow edit the model many times so basically we don't know what our future self wants.
Why maintain the axioms of logic and maths? Isn’t it wiser to question the axioms themselves at a certain point?
Another question: Could you share your thoughts on Herbert Simon in all this?
If we were going to take Pascal's argument one step further couldnt we look at historical evidences to choose which god and or sacred text to believe? I have heard it said that the biblical prophecy in relation to Jesus coming defies all the odds and the probability he was God is exceptionally high, so high probability and high reward. Also from my perspective the biblical representation of human behavior is spot on and what would be the probability first century and much earlier farmers and fisherman were able to independently perfectly describe human behavior and nature. Thats pretty much what lead me to believe. Anyhow, great video!!!
Very interesting speech. However, i have to disagree on the fact that lack of knowledge can't be quantified using probabilities. There are methods to estimate upper and lower probabilities, so that the difference is called ambiguity (Dempster, 1967). If you have to make assumptions on something you don't know anything, you can say that the probability of occurence of a phenomenon is between 0 to 1. Anyway, i guess Gilboa knows about this and that he didn't talk about it to make a short video.
Chrin N yes I agree, pretty much exactly. Except your first three words. I was not impressed.
I know quite a bit about this field. Your comment interesting. He made many errors. Couldn’t even get pascals wager right. He said it’s a dominant strategy in all scenarios, then described expected value.
Dr.Francesco Bravo brought me here
14:52 BARS!
Itzhak is educated!
Even the simple fact that he's wager can be applied to anything, Zeus, Allah,ra and any infinite number of gods does that not mean his wager is not "always have one being the best out come" but that it's useless in any situation.
MIND = 🤯
Lucy in the water
Sensacional
the main thing about audio SWALLOW is to level all audio so that SWALLOW every single sound SWALLOW SOUND OF SPIT NEAR LEFT REAR MOLAR is the same I CAN HEAR EVERY MOTION OF THIS MAN'S SPIT.
The effects of postmodernism in economics.. the rationalization of the irrational
THANKS
Never heard so much crap about probability!
yes
This guy got a big nose 👃 by telling me the truth or by lying like Pinnochio?
50/50. We dont know haha. This actually answer the final part of this video as well. Never heard so much crap about probability!
"serious science" lmao