= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
handoflixue comments on SotW: Check Consequentialism - 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 (311)
Very true. However, "avoid X information, since it biases me" is actually an example of such a patch. Especially if the information doesn't otherwise have any useful value. How often does knowledge of sunk costs actually move you towards ideal action, rather than biasing you away from it?
Sure, avoiding information is an example of patching a decision theory, agreed.
So I guess what I'm saying is that "either eliminate the information, or fix the decision theory" is a misleading way to phrase the choice. My real choice is between fixing it and patching it, where eliminating the information is one of several ways to patch it, and not always the best.
Making choices about future investments in ignorance of the existing data I have about previous investments and their ROI is probably less ideal than taking those data into consideration and applying some other patch to compensate for sunk-costing.
I like the idea of phrasing it as "patching vs long-term fixes" :)