Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#51

Post by throwaway14356 »

My own model is pretty good. (pun of the decade) I could fully explain it but it says it wouldn't be understood. (lame I know) But we can start with dismissing the rational actor. It was something I loved to pretend to be true. This was irrational. There is nothing to suggest people act rationally! We all have heads full of nonsense. Just wait 1000 years and the common man will be laughing his ass off. There is no reason to think we are the exceptional generation. We ponder all these errors we believe to be facts and "rationally" arrive at erroneous conclusions. Then, now that we've figured things out it will be a rare exception for us to implement it. In stead we do what we always did and stubbornly defend our actions even if we know its wrong.

It is astonishing to see what we've accomplished despite these rather large shortcomings.

If you disagree, how do you know this emotion isnt triggered by what you would like to be real?

When convinced of anything one grows a bias blind spot of biblical volume. It is a tremendous struggle to look around it.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#52

Post by Nursie »

m4nu3l wrote: post #40
zwkrt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would normally be skeptical of an article that starts with a description of epicycles because it probably means that whatever is going to be described next is totally bullshit. In this case I’m not so sure. As a plebeian normie, it seems like the “rational actor” model of economics has a lot of problems. Now I do believe that All people are All of the time trying to achieve their goals and meet their needs as can b…

The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country? I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons: 1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same i…

Far better.

Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are.

Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck.

People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general. Yes, I include myself. Most struggle with delayed gratification, let alone retirement planning.

A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate. Without one, well, you'll likely end up with Grafton, NH, writ large - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#53

Post by MereInterest »

whatshisface wrote: post #47
darkerside wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems obvious that type 1 thinking satisfices and type 2 maximizes.

Nobody can maximize that's impossible, it'd involve something like making perfect stock picks.

Finding the best possible choice is impossible, but selecting the choice that maximizes expectation is possible. The former would be driving a different route because you know that a specific driver would rear-end you, and is impossible because it requires knowing the future. The latter would be driving a different route because you know that there's an annoying left turn.

The distinction isn't in whether your have access to all possible information for use in a decision. It's whether you use all available information in a decision.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#54

Post by whatshisface »

MereInterest wrote: post #53
whatshisface wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody can maximize that's impossible, it'd involve something like making perfect stock picks.

Finding the best possible choice is impossible, but selecting the choice that maximizes expectation is possible. The former would be driving a different route because you know that a specific driver would rear-end you, and is impossible because it requires knowing the future. The latter would be driving a different route because you know that there's an annoying left turn. The distinction isn't in whether your have a…

Nobody uses all available information, whoever did would probably start by collecting every millennium prize.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#55

Post by analog31 »

I have several problems with this. First, we seem to be assuming that we can figure out what someone's optimum choice should be. Second, the "biases" seem to come from studies of heavily contrived situations. Third, some people could be rationally inclined but just have weak reasoning ability.

In short, I'm still mildly skeptical that we've really disproven the rational actor model.

Maybe the rational actor model is the heliocentrism we're looking for. People want it to be false, in order to justify paternalism.

I once read that in the century after Newton, the French Academy offered a prize for evidence that disproved Newtonian mechanics, and they awarded it several times before finally giving up. The disproofs were all flawed.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#56

Post by galaxyLogic »

It's not only that we can't know what the optimal choice is. We also can't know how far the benefits of our choice are from the benefits of the optimal choice.

And what would be the expense of figureing out what the optimal choice is.

I got into this way of thinking this morning starting with what is the definition of "Technical Debt". I would say it is the cost of moving from the current implementation to the optimal implementation.

But we don't know what would the optimal implementation. That means we can't even begin to estimate how much it would cost to refactor the current implementation into the optimal implementation.

Therefore I conclude that "Technical Debt" is consultant-speak. Something you can sell without clearly explaining what you are selling.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#57

Post by Nursie »

Nursie wrote: post #52
m4nu3l wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country? I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons: 1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same i…

Far better. Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are. Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck. People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general. Yes, I include myself. Most struggle with delayed gratification, let alone retir…

Replying to myself - obviously this is within limits, the government should be just that, a governor. Centralised planning does not work.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#58

Post by nyokodo »

jjk166 wrote: post #23

The rational actor model assumes that a person will behave optimally - using all information available to make and carry out the best decision possible for their goals. I strongly suspect that a better model is that people instead of optimizing their outcomes instead optimize the ease of decision making while still getting an acceptable course of action. Most of our biases serve to either allow us to make decisions q…

> optimize the ease of decision making while still getting an acceptable course of action

This might explain some behavior, but how does this model explain why many people choose to hurt others out of spite even if it means hurting themselves? Those choices are neither easy, nor optimal, nor ultimately acceptable as many people who do stupid things like that end up regretting it. It seems to me and most of historical humanity that something is fundamentally broken in us beyond merely missing out on the optimal outcome due to stochastic acceptableness. Sometimes we deliberately choose to do something very difficult that we know is wrong because we desire the bad outcome. That is messed up.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#59

Post by arthurcolle »

jjk166 wrote: post #23

The rational actor model assumes that a person will behave optimally - using all information available to make and carry out the best decision possible for their goals. I strongly suspect that a better model is that people instead of optimizing their outcomes instead optimize the ease of decision making while still getting an acceptable course of action. Most of our biases serve to either allow us to make decisions q…

> The rational actor model assumes that a person will behave optimally - using all information available to make and carry out the best decision possible for their goals. I strongly suspect that a better model is that people instead of optimizing their outcomes instead optimize the ease of decision making while still getting an acceptable course of action.

This is a very profound insight that I completely agree with. I've noticed that exact phenomena in my own life in my peer groups. Basically disengaging, not looking for new local maximas (in fairness, because they are hard to detect as they are happening) because the current situation is good enough to keep coasting on.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#60

Post by mstipetic »

elevaet wrote: post #37
mstipetic wrote: post #18

40% of US believes the earth was created in the last 10,000 years. Any model relying on rationality has no chance here

I've heard this stated before, is this true? Source?

Here’s gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati...
Post reply on HN