wedrifid comments on Buy Insurance -- Bet Against Yourself - Less Wrong

29 Post author: MBlume 26 November 2010 04:48AM

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

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 November 2010 12:48:02PM 1 point [-]

Find an outcome that would make you financially miserable, and bet on it such that if it comes to pass you won't be financially miserable.

Financially wasn't the missing nuance. In fact this works in principle even for causes of non-financial misery. But the feature that is needed is risk aversion. Or a non-linear utility to money relationship. Anything that makes you care more about a winning bet than a losing bet of the same amount. Caring (potential misery) is actually not directly relevant.

Comment author: bogus 26 November 2010 10:47:29PM *  2 points [-]

But the feature that is needed is risk aversion.

Don't forget about liquidity constraints.

For most people in the West, $10,000 is a negligible fraction of their lifetime wealth, so it is not rational to be anything other than risk-neutral about it. But User:Kevin needs his $5,800 as soon as the election ends, not over his lifetime. He may or may not be risk-averse, but he is definitely liquidity-constrained.

To the downvoter: If you don't believe that risk-neutrality is rational for relatively small sums of money, I've got some extended warranties to sell you. And if it was legal, I'd throw in some tickets for the local numbers bank as an alternative.

Comment author: shokwave 26 November 2010 01:01:51PM 0 points [-]

I'll admit I can't make much sense of what you're saying, but

anything that makes you care more about a winning bet than a losing bet of the same amount.

this is already in the post - you care about a winning bet because it saved you from hard times, you don't care about a losing bet because you profit in other ways from this outcome.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 November 2010 01:16:11PM 2 points [-]

this is already in the post

I didn't disagree with the post, nor suggest the post was lacking. I pointed out that the concluding exhortation misses the mark.

Comment author: MBlume 01 December 2010 12:20:44AM *  0 points [-]

I pointed out that the concluding exhortation misses the mark.

It absolutely does. I sacrificed some precision for clarity so that I could end with a ringing exhortation. When I have a moment I'll probably footnote this.

Honestly, part of me is still a little confused about what I'm supposed to do at the ends of essays other than stop talking when I've said all the stuff I have to say.

ETA: On further reflection, the exhortation is almost right. The target you want to optimize for is "outcome in which money is worth more" but "outcome I'd really hate" is a cheaper target to compute -- it's emotionally salient, and can be quickly processed, probably in parallel -- while still being a decent pointer to the true target -- you can use a deliberative, serial process afterwards to pick the outcomes you actually should bet on.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2010 04:04:27AM 0 points [-]

The target you want to optimize for is "outcome in which money is worth more" but "outcome I'd really hate" is a cheaper target to compute -- it's emotionally salient, and can be quickly processed, probably in parallel -- while still being a decent pointer to the true target -- you can use a deliberative, serial process afterwards to pick the outcomes you actually should bet on.

Exactly!