pull down to refresh

152 sats \ 4 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 9h \ parent \ on: The Obvious Problem That No One Can Agree On - Veritasium science

I was a one-boxer upon hearing the problem. I can appreciate the arguments for two-boxing, but if given the chance, I'd still one-box it.

For example, if the numbers changed from $1k / $1m to $500k, $510k, I suspect a lot more would take both boxes, despite the expected-utility calculations working the same.

Yeah, I agree that most people just answer based on gut feeling. A follow-up question in their survey should have been: can you define EU in a Bayesian context?

write
preview
211 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 9h

I think at $1k and $1M I'd also one-box it, but this would be motivated by vague superstitious notions / ambiguity aversion and also trying to minimize the feeling of regret. (If I 1-box, at most I lose out on $1,000 but if I 2-box I could feel like I missed out on $1M)

reply
68 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 4h

a harder decision is 10k vs 100k

reply
23 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 3h

Real world $1k vs. $1M probably wouldn't be as 50/50 as the experimental results suggest. I bet most of the people choosing two-boxing are thinking of it like a logic puzzle rather than a real life choice.

reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 3h
reply