You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Epictetus comments on Open thread, Mar. 2 - Mar. 8, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 02 March 2015 08:19AM

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

Comments (155)

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

Comment author: Epictetus 04 March 2015 05:09:24AM 3 points [-]

Expected utility is convenient and makes for a nice mathematical theory.

It also makes a lot of assumptions. One assumes that the expectation does, in fact, exist. It need not. For example, in a game where two players toss a fair coin, we expect that in the long run the number of heads should equal the number of tails at some point. It turns out that the expected waiting time is infinite. Then there's the classic St. Petersburg paradox.

There are examples of "fair" bets (i.e. expected gain is 0) that are nevertheless unfavorable (in the sense that you're almost certain to sustain a net loss over time).

Expected utility is a model of reality that does a good job in many circumstances but has some key drawbacks where naive application will lead to unrealistic decisions. The map is not the territory, after all.