5 ms·
Something along those lines is what I recall reading in Kahneman's book. I just double-checked the 'Loss Aversion' chapter, and indeed he writes, and elaborate
by kashyapc 8y ago
Something along those lines is what I recall reading in Kahneman's book. I just double-checked the 'Loss Aversion' chapter, and indeed he writes, and elaborates further:
"What is the smallest gain that I need to balance an equal chance to lose $100? For many people the answer is about $200, twice as much as the loss. The "loss aversion ratio" has been estimated in several experiments and is usually in the range of 1.5 to 2.5. This is an average, of course; some people are much more loss averse than others. Professional risk takers in the financial markets are more tolerant of losses, probably because they do not respond emotionally to every fluctuation. When participants in an experiment were instructed to "think like a trader," they became less loss averse and their emotional reaction to losses (measured by a physiological index of emotional arousal) was sharply reduced. [...]"
- mrob 8y ago>Professional risk takers in the financial markets are more tolerant of losses, probably because they do not respond emotionally to every fluctuation. Or more plausibly, because they're richer, and the utility they stand to lose is smaller.
- kashyapc 8y agoGood reminder. Although subconsciously I realize that, I didn't remind myself that way and after re-reading that paragraph, I thought: "hmm, maybe I should up 'risk-seeking' dial a bit more"—which can be evaluated independently, though, depending on one's "risk profile".