= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Value of Information: 8 examples - 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 (43)
Maybe, but my understanding is that that value is already being screened off: the something must be positive expected value in the first place, or you wouldn't be using it at all in the first place.
(But I could be wrong, and I've already pinged Vaniver with a request to look things over since that's the sort of basic conceptual confusion I couldn't get myself out of.)
It's certainly true that you wouldn't be exploring things that didn't have positive expected value, but wouldn't the size of the expected value matter?
I don't think it matters unless your investments are limited. If you have presented with X positive expected value investments, and you have enough funds for X+1 investments, what do you do? Invest in all X and reap the maximum possible return. (If you are limited to only 2 investments, then you will be very interested in which 2 investments of the X investments have the greatest sized expected value.)
This is pretty much the case with supplements: I don't lack capital to invest in them (look at how cheap some of the examples are, like lithium or melatonin), I lack good candidates for investment!