The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail • Hacker News Board

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#21

Post by inopinatus » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:39 AM UTC

repsilat wrote: post #7

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the point of the second question. Does the answer mean to state authoritatively that that engineers are no more likely to do carpentry and partake in recreational mathematics than lawyers, or is there another explanation? If it were changed to something like "2. A team of psychologists performed personality tests on 100 professionals, of which 50 were engineers and 50 were nurses.…

I recently passed (with high distinctions) three postgraduate course exams towards my masters degree (at a top-10 university). Ho hum, don't be impressed; that is not unusual. My strategy, though, is not textbook; I spend more time studying the conceits of the lecturer, than I did the lecture material itself.

With this in mind:

The point we're supposed to accept is that when asked to evaluate the data sets presented, one heuristically makes assumptions based on social norms and crystallised intelligence. I'm pretty sure that this hypothesis was made in the article preceding the quiz, so no excuses for not realising the point of, well, any of the questions.

For the theatre question, I too started with your interpretation. However, it didn't make sense in the context of illustrating the author's hypothesis, so it couldn't have been the "right" answer.

Protip: when considering someone's line of argument in anything but a hard engineering discipline, I usually play the man before the ball - it's much more revealing.

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#22

Post by jimrandomh » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:40 AM UTC

Kahneman's work is great, and deserves to have attention directed to it, but this Vanity Fair article is pretty bad. Why does the title say that Kahneman wants people to fail the quiz? That's wrong, and since it's attention-grabbing in a way that the truth isn't, I'd say it's dishonest. And the rest of it is riddled with errors and confusions.

So go read Daniel Kahneman's books, and don't read Vanity Fair.

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#23

Post by colanderman » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:53 AM UTC

The questions involving "90% chance of $1000 or 100% chance of $900" always bother me. I never understand why economists think that a rational actor would consider them equivalent; they're not, unless you are making that choice many many times.

But if I'm given that chance once (which is presumably what most participants assume, since that's not a choice that comes up often in one's life), it's really then a choice between "90% of a ton of free money or 100% chance of a ton of free money". Unless the dollar amounts are radically different, who in their right mind would take the choice that could possibly leave them without a life-changing sum the next day?

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#24

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:55 AM UTC

Vivtek wrote: post #9

I didn't much like this: " being swayed by the way in which questions are worded rather than responding just to their substance " (for the lost ticket being allegedly equivalent to $10). Is a ticket, which costs $10, emotionally equivalent to $10? Once bought, the ticket is unique in my eyes, whereas I'm not even sure how many $10 bills I have in my wallet even now. So if I lose one, well, maybe it wasn't there in th…

That's kind of the whole point of the research. Neoclassical economics assumes certain things about peoples' utility functions that aren't true. For example, even though you can ascribe utility to going on a date, there should be no difference between not going on a date at all and having to cancel a date you had expected to go on. Obviously people don't view things that way. Or, to use another example from Kahneman's work, getting a $5,000 raise out of the blue is perceived as very different than getting a $5,000 raise after your boss had told you to expect a $10,000 raise. Or, for that matter, after your coworker got a $10,000 raise.

From the standpoint of neoclassical economics, these outcomes should be the same, but clearly they're not. Delving into the psychology of the rational actor in this way is a pretty fundamental change in economics.

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#25

Post by sesqu » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:56 AM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #3

His nobel prize lecture is well worth a watch if you have 37 minutes to spare. http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=531

This lecture revealed an error in question 5.

The Vanity Fair article says "Kahneman and Tversky debunked Bernoulli’s utility theory, a cornerstone of economic thought since the 18th century. (Bernoulli first proponed that a person’s willingness to gamble a certain amount of money was a product of how that amount related to his overall wealth—that is, $1 million means more to a millionaire than it does to a billionaire.)"

But in the lecture, Kahneman stated no qualms with utility theory. Rather, he pointed to the application of the theory, where Bernoulli had assumed a gain of $1 million is equivalent to $1 million appearing in their bank account, with the mechanism being irrelevant. That is what prospect theory (and the associated question) debunks.

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#26

Post by aangjie » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 5:03 AM UTC

jonathlee wrote: post #8

Despite the article's imputation that heuristics is a quick vs. accurate trade off, Gerd Gigerenzer's work show that in fact it is usually "quick AND more accurate" when used in the real, "large", world versus the "small" world of games and logical puzzles where all of the rules are known and knowledge of the problem is perfect, with infinite time allowed for optimization and calculation. The video here is well worth…

+1 for pointing out the contradictory research.....

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#27

Post by 2arrs2ells » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 5:05 AM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #23

The questions involving "90% chance of $1000 or 100% chance of $900" always bother me. I never understand why economists think that a rational actor would consider them equivalent; they're not , unless you are making that choice many many times. But if I'm given that chance once (which is presumably what most participants assume, since that's not a choice that comes up often in one's life), it's really then a choice…

The interesting thing is not that people are risk averse (and thus choose 100% chance of $900), the interesting thing is that people become risk seeking when it comes to losses (and thus choose 90% chance of -$1000).

You're creating a bit of a straw man when it comes to behavioral economists and their view of "rational actors" - the whole field is built around the understanding that there is more to economic decisions than expected value.

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#28

Post by elnerdo » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 5:05 AM UTC

diego wrote: post #14

gburt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of this quiz seems to have completely misunderstood the relevant research. Either he has to assume that all individuals are identical (in which case, the little story is irrelevant) or he needs to apply Bayes rule according to the probabilities associated with the factors expressed in the personality exposition. Either way, the article's explanation for that particular question is wrong.

Exactly. Here's the example used in Kahneman's book: "Dick is a 30-year-old man. He is married with no children. A man of high ability and high motivation, he promises to be quite successful in his field. He is well liked by his colleagues. This description was intended to convey no information relevant to the question of whether Dick is an engineer or a lawyer." The description in the quiz is very different.

This still conveys a lot of information.

Engineering is more male-heavy than lawyering.

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#29

Post by dmazin » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 5:08 AM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #23

The questions involving "90% chance of $1000 or 100% chance of $900" always bother me. I never understand why economists think that a rational actor would consider them equivalent; they're not , unless you are making that choice many many times. But if I'm given that chance once (which is presumably what most participants assume, since that's not a choice that comes up often in one's life), it's really then a choice…

I don't understand. Kahneman's whole thing is showing that it's wrong to assume that humans are rational actors. Your second paragraph is exactly the point - the choices are not equivalent to humans.

Re: The quiz Daniel Kahneman wants you to fail

#30

Post by amireza » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 5:17 AM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #23

The questions involving "90% chance of $1000 or 100% chance of $900" always bother me. I never understand why economists think that a rational actor would consider them equivalent; they're not , unless you are making that choice many many times. But if I'm given that chance once (which is presumably what most participants assume, since that's not a choice that comes up often in one's life), it's really then a choice…

I think, when the money you may gain or lose goes way over your possible wealth you will start to think really non-linear (non-rational).

but I agree that people with same wealth level will weight risk factor differently ( in each gain or loss). in other words simple utility function is not enough!