= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
steven0461 comments on Is risk aversion really irrational ? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (65)
You're explaining aversion to uncertainty, not risk. What if you think of buying a lottery ticket, do so immediately, and are immediately informed of the outcome (immediate meaning within a few seconds). You then would have endured potentially high risk (if the ticket was very expensive) with negligible uncertainty (only endured for a few seconds, where there's negligible likelihood that you would make contingent choices in the interval). The thought experiment shows that risk aversion obtains without uncertainty.
General comment: You and another poster supplied excellent summaries. What I wonder is why is it (often) seen as necessary to belabor the obvious, when the point can be stated succinctly with greater clarity?
Seconded. I think many posts in the Main section could and should be cut down by a factor of say 2 or 3.
"I have only made this letter so long because I didn't have time to make it shorter." -- Blaise Pascal
Hindsight bias. Just because something can be summarized relatively simply in hindsight doesn't mean the same summary would be as convincing or even be remembered if it's all you read. It's the same reason math class isn't just you reading a book that starts with axioms and then lists theorems until you know all of math.
It can't be hindsight bias in this particular case, because I didn't read the post.
Did you not read any of the posts? My point wasn't specific to this post.