emr comments on Open thread, Feb. 9 - Feb. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (321)
I found this exercise surprising and useful. Supposing we accept the standard model that our utility is logarithmic in money. Let's suppose we're paid $100,000 a year, and somewhat arbitrarily use that as the baseline for our utility calculations. We go out for a meal with 10 people where each spends $20 on food. At the end of the meal, we can either all put in $20 or we can randomize it and have one person pay $200. All other things being equal, how much should we be prepared to pay to avoid randomization?
Take a guess at the rough order of magnitude. Then look at this short Python program until you're happy that it's calculating the amount that you were trying to estimate, and then run it to see how accurate your estimate was.
Incidentally I discovered this while working out the (trivial) formula for an approximation to this following conversations with Paul Christiano and Benja Fallenstein.
EDITED TO ADD: If you liked this, check out Expectorant by Bethany Soule of Beeminder fame.
Conversly, if you'd pay much more than this, you are absurdly risk averse: Here's a pdf of a classic paper by Rabin: Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem
Abstract:
This seems to make an unwarranted assumption about exactly how the marginal utility diminishes.
The paper, or my comment? I interpreted the paper as an attack on (explanatory) models of risk aversion that are based on this (quite general) type of utility curve, with the conclusion that observed behavior can't be motivated by such a curve.
This is a great example of If It’s Worth Doing, It’s Worth Doing With Made-Up Statistics. If the assumption is your True Rejection, it's worth playing around with alternate models to see if you can get a different answer. The simple truth is that humans are dynamically inconsistent.