MichaelBishop comments on Expected futility for humans - Less Wrong

11 [deleted] 09 June 2009 12:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (35)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 09 June 2009 02:53:57PM *  3 points [-]

Your argument boils down to "Calculating expected utilities is hard, therefore its rarely worth trying." I agree with the premise, but the conclusion goes too far.

There are many situations in which I have done better by considering possible outcomes, the associated likelihoods, and payoffs. I have used this reasoning in my (short) career, in decisions about investing/insurance, in my relationships, and in considering what charities are worthwhile.

Yes, in many situations good habits and heuristics are more useful than thinking about probabilities, but you get mighty close to reifying our "intuitive decision procedure" aka our stone-age brain which was programmed to maximize inclusive fitness (which does not weigh heavily in my utility function) in an environment which was very different from the one in which we now find ourselves.

Comment author: loqi 09 June 2009 05:53:44PM 2 points [-]

Your argument boils down to "Calculating expected utilities is hard, therefore its rarely worth trying."

I think this fails to capture an important point Roko made. If living according to expected utility calculations was merely hard, but didn't carry significant risks beyond the time spent doing the calculations, the statement "trying to run your life based upon expected utility maximization is not a good idea" would not carry much weight. However:

There are many other pitfalls: One is thinking that you know what is of value in your life, and forgetting what the most important things are

This is the real problem, and it seems more about calibration than accuracy.