fool comments on The Ellsberg paradox and money pumps - Less Wrong

10 Post author: fool 28 January 2012 05:34PM

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

Comments (72)

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

Comment author: fool 30 January 2012 10:27:51PM 0 points [-]

Well, in terms of decisions, P(green) = 1/3 +- 1/9 means that I'd buy a bet on green for the price of a true randomised bet with probability 2/9, and sell for 4/9, with the caveats mentioned.

We might say that the price of a left boot is $15 +- $5 and the price of a right boot is $15 -+ $5.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 31 January 2012 03:10:11AM 0 points [-]

Yes. So basically you are biting a certain bullet that most of us are unwilling to bite, of not having a procedure to determine your decisions and just kind of choosing a number in the middle of your range of choices that seems reasonable.

You're also biting a bullet where you have a certain kind of discontinuity in your preferences with very small bets, I think.

Comment author: fool 31 January 2012 07:30:48PM 0 points [-]

I don't understand what you mean in the first paragraph. I've given an exact procedure for my decisions.

What kind of discontinuities to you have in mind?

Comment author: Will_Sawin 31 January 2012 11:22:13PM 0 points [-]

How do you choose the interval? I have not been able to see any method other than choosing something that sounds good (choosing the minimum and maximum conceivable would lead to silly Pascal's Wager - type things, and probably total paralysis.)

The discontinuity: Suppose you are asked to put a fair price f(N) on a bet that returns N if A occurs and 1 if it does not. The function f will have a sharp bend at 1, equivalent to a discontinuity in the derivative.

An alternative ambiguity aversion function, more complicated to define, would give a smooth bend.

Comment author: fool 01 February 2012 01:15:05AM 0 points [-]

How do you choose the interval? I have not been able to see any method other than choosing something that sounds good

Heh. I'm the one being accused of huffing priors? :-)

Okay, granted, there are methods like maximum entropy for Bayesian priors that can be applied in some situations, and the Ellsberg urn is such a situation.

Yes, you are correct about the discontinuity in the derivative.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 01 February 2012 01:54:11AM 0 points [-]

Yes. Because you're huffing priors. Twice as much, in fact - we have to make up one number, you have to make up two.