Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters
Rate it:
Open Preview
34%
Flag icon
fluency in Bayesian reasoning and other forms of statistical competence is a public good that should be a priority in education.
34%
Flag icon
The principles of cognitive psychology suggest that it’s better to work with the rationality people have and enhance it further
34%
Flag icon
(RATIONAL CHOICE AND EXPECTED UTILITY)
34%
Flag icon
Everyone complains about his memory, and no one complains about his judgment.
35%
Flag icon
John von Neumann
35%
Flag icon
theory of what makes choices consistent with the chooser’s values
35%
Flag icon
Commensurability:
35%
Flag icon
Transitivity,
35%
Flag icon
Closure.
35%
Flag icon
The theory of rational choice is a theory of decision making with known unknowns: with risk, not necessarily uncertainty.
35%
Flag icon
Consolidation.
35%
Flag icon
decider faced with a series of risky choices works out the overall risk according to the laws of probability
35%
Flag icon
Independence,
35%
Flag icon
If you prefer A to B, then you also prefer a lottery with A and C as the payouts to a lottery with B and C as the payouts
35%
Flag icon
Consistency: if you prefer A to B, then you prefer a gamble in which you have some chance at getting A, your first choice, and otherwise get B, to the certainty of settling for B.
35%
Flag icon
To meet these criteria for rationality, the decider must assess the value of each outcome on a continuous scale of desirability, multiply by its probability, and add them up, yielding the “expected utility” of that option. (In this context, expected means “on average, in the long run,” not “anticipated,” and utility means “preferable by the lights of the decider,”
35%
Flag icon
A rational chooser is a utility maximizer,
36%
Flag icon
Utility is not the same as self-interest; it’s whatever scale of value a rational decider consistently maximizes.
36%
Flag icon
bounded rationality.
36%
Flag icon
satisfice,
37%
Flag icon
Whether a choice driven by these emotions is “rational” depends on whether you think that emotions are natural responses we should respect, like eating and staying warm, or evolutionary nuisances our rational powers should override.
37%
Flag icon
emotions triggered by possibility and certainty
38%
Flag icon
Prospect theory.
38%
Flag icon
the negative pole, death is not just something that really, really sucks. It’s game over,
38%
Flag icon
with no chance to play again, a singularity that makes all calculations of utility moot.
38%
Flag icon
we do always want to keep our choices consistent with our values. That’s all that the theory of expected utility can deliver, and it’s a consistency we should not take for granted.
39%
Flag icon
suspect there are countless decisions in life where if we did multiply the risks by the
39%
Flag icon
rewards we would choose more wisely.
39%
Flag icon
doesn’t take a lot of math to show that the expected utility of ovarian cancer screening is negative.
39%
Flag icon
How many people have ruined their lives by taking a gamble with a large chance at a small gain and a small chance at a catastrophic loss—
39%
Flag icon
how many lonely singles forgo the small chance of a lifetime of happiness with a soul mate because they think only of the large chance of a tedious coffee with a bore?
39%
Flag icon
for betting your life: Have you ever saved a minute on the road by driving over the speed limit, or indulged your impatience by checking your new texts while crossing the street? If you weighed the benefits against the chance of an accident multiplied by the price you put on your life, which way would it go? And if you don’t think this way, can you call yourself rational?
39%
Flag icon
(SIGNAL DETECTION AND STATISTICAL DECISION THEORY)
39%
Flag icon
The output of statistical decision theory is not a degree of credence but an actionable decision: to have surgery or not, to convict or acquit.
41%
Flag icon
our moral aspirations for justice outstrip our probative powers?
43%
Flag icon
game theory, the analysis of how to make rational choices when the payoffs depend on someone else’s rational choices.
43%
Flag icon
Game theory was presented to the world by von Neumann and Morgenstern in the same book in which they explained expected utility and rational choice.
43%
Flag icon
zero-sum game.
44%
Flag icon
Nash equilibrium,
44%
Flag icon
Volunteer’s Dilemma,
44%
Flag icon
“win–win”—
44%
Flag icon
Rendezvous.
45%
Flag icon
Chicken,
46%
Flag icon
Prisoner’s Dilemma,
46%
Flag icon
Public Goods games.
47%
Flag icon
A correlation is a dependence of the value of one variable on the value of another:
47%
Flag icon
regression,
48%
Flag icon
regression to the mean.
49%
Flag icon
The Winner’s Curse applies to any unusually successful human venture,
49%
Flag icon
“constant conjunction”