= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
V_V comments on Median utility rather than mean? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (86)
If your preferences aren't transitive, then even your one-shot decision making system is completely broken, since it can't even yield an action that is "preferred" in a meaningful sense. Vulnerability to money pumping would be the last of your concerns in this case.
Money pumping is an issue in sequential decision making with time-discounting and/or time horizons: any method to aggregate future utilities other than exponential discounting ( * ) over an infinite time horizon yields dynamic inconsistency which could, in principle, be exploited for money pumping.
The intuitive justification for the independence axiom is the following:
This decision making example looks intuitively irrational. If you prefer ice cream to cake when they are the only two alternatives, then why would you prefer cake to ice cream when a third, inferior, alternative is included? The independence axiom formalizes this intuition about rational behavior.
( * with no discounting being a special case of exponential discounting)
You're thinking of a different meaning of "independence". A violation of the independence axiom of VNM would look more like this:
Yes, I believe that this is a stronger version. Median utility satisfies the weaker version of the axiom but not the stronger one.
But notice you had two decision points there.
Intransitivity breaks your decision system with a single decision point; dependence does not. Hence a single policy decision has to be transitive, but need not be independent.
The first decision is immediately canceled and has no effect on your utility, hence it isn't really a relevant decision point.
More generally, the independence axiom makes sure that the outcome of your decision process is not affected by bad options that are available to you.
Except that median-maximising respects independence for options that are available to you (or can be trivially tweaked to do so). It only violates independence for hypothetical bad options that will never be available to you.
It can be rational to do this. There's a paradox publicized by Martin Gardner demonstrating how. Unfortunately the best link I could easily find was a Reddit comment, but try https://www.reddit.com/r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu/comments/gxwqe/why_i_hate_people/c1r5203 .