* Version 5.1.0 * December 12, 2024 Introduction Weighing evidence is hard. Intuition is liable to a myriad of biases and relies on flawed heuristics. Bayes theory provides a rigorous mathematical basis, but applying Bayes theory in practice is too difficult for most people. Yet, what is more central to...
* August 23, 2023 * Version 1.0.0 Abstract: In this article, I examine the discrepancies between classical game theory models and real-world human decision-making, focusing on irrational behavior. Traditional game theory frames individuals as rational utility maximizers, functioning within pre-set decision trees. However, empirical observations, as pointed out by researchers...
Weighing evidence is hard. Intuition is liable to a myriad of biases and relies on flawed heuristics. Bayes theory provides a rigorous mathematical basis, but applying Bayes theory in practice is too difficult for most people. Yet, what is more central to thinking critically than being able to weigh evidence correctly?
The Evidence Color Wheel is a tool for weighing evidence. When presented with evidence for a claim, simply move your finger from one color region to the next to determine how likely the claim is given the evidence. The probability that a claim is true is represented by a segment with three colors. The outer color gives the maximum... (read 878 more words →)
Thanks for the feedback @localdeity. I agree that my article could be read as implying that emotions are inherently irrational and that, from an evolutionary perspective, emotions have underlying logics (for instance anger likely exists to ensure that we enforce our social boundaries against transgression). This reading does not reflect my views however.
My scheme follows decision theory by assuming that we can assign an "objective" utility value to each action/option. This utility value should encompass everything - including whatever benefits may be reflected in the logics underlying emotions. Thus, there shouldn't be any benefit that emotions provide that is not included in these utility values. There are times when our emotions are... (read more)
Version 1.0.0
Abstract: In this article, I examine the discrepancies between classical game theory models and real-world human decision-making, focusing on irrational behavior. Traditional game theory frames individuals as rational utility maximizers, functioning within pre-set decision trees. However, empirical observations, as pointed out by researchers like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, reveal that humans often diverge from these rational models, instead being influenced by cognitive biases, emotions, and heuristic-based decision making.
Game theory provides a mathematically rigorous model of human behavior. It has been applied to fields as diverse as Economics and literary Critical Theory. Within game theory, people are represented as rational actors seeking to maximize their expected utility in a... (read 3142 more words →)