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

61–70 of 97 posts

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

#61

Post by mistermann »

whatshisface wrote: post #54
MereInterest wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but even execution with literally zero unforced errors with the information one does have is something that can be pursued.

Or can it? Is it even possible or are humans so fundamentally flawed they they inevitably fail on day one? Pointing to monks is a standard example, but they tend to isolate themselves from difficult environments.

The laws of physics don't stop us, but something does.

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

#63

Post by victor9000 »

thecassandrist wrote: post #49
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…

I tend to optimize for the least amount of perceived effort, most benefit, least actual productive output. I will spend 2 days writing a utility so I never have to do the same repetitive 30 second task twice. I’m rationally irrational.

All of this is great, you just need to adjust your threshold for automation so that it results in net savings when it comes to time.

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

#66

Post by stkdump »

analog31 wrote: post #55

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…

And nowadays Newtonian mechanics are disproven and we still apply it broadly, because it's still useful. It just doesn't paint the full picture. Same for the geocentric world view. We all know that the earth isn't the center of the solar system, but we still measure days, years, seasons, etc. as if it were. Why? Because for most uses, it is the simpler and more helpful model.

I think something similar could happen here. We come up with a more accurate model that requires fewer exceptions, but is harder to apply/work with day-to-day.

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

#67

Post by hgomersall »

josefrichter wrote: post #46

“dominant model … is the rational-actor model.” – is that so? In my discipline, experience design, it’s definitely not.

It is in economics. Basically the problem here is orthodox economics - it's not just the behavioural model that includes a few epicycles.

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

#68

Post by dalbasal »

What he's describing a marketing model moreso than an economic one. This a theme with behavioural economics. I doubt they'll find one.

The "homo economicus" model has become somewhat of a straw man for behavioural economics to disprove. Realistically the model was never claimed to apply in the types of domains where it's being disproved.

Consumers of the modern world are bombarded with choices and attempts to influence these choices. That's not a world, IMO, that can be "modelled" in the same way that a medieval village can be modelled.

If the discipline must be scientific, maybe the better model is "engineering science" where you have to try and build the thing in order to study it. Computation may exist, in various forms, in nature. But, the way to do computer science isn't observing nature. It's building computers, at least on paper.

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

#70

Post by mihaic »

Obligatory quote: "All models are wrong, but some are useful".

I realized about myself that I became better at decision-making the easier I could switch to the "appropriate model" for a give situation. Not even physics can get a unified model, and the primitives in social sciences (humans, memories, desires, education) are all as fuzzy as can be.

The article does mention that "rational-actor" might actually be the best we can come up with, but that's if we always have to always work with the same model.

We could have a newtonian/relativistic style pair of models for people, based on urgency or marginal utility threshold (different rules apply to your last dollar), but that threshold has to be subjective, and we seem to have lost all hope in anything subjective.

Post reply on HN