3 ms·

Story of my life. Jokes aside, the article starts with the assumption that there's an absolute "best" result, and doesn't really consider that "best" is relati

Story of my life. Jokes aside, the article starts with the assumption that there's an absolute "best" result, and doesn't really consider that "best" is relative to your value system. If you choose to take the slower route home, maybe you just find it less frustrating. If you don't choose the optimal game strategy, maybe you just want the thrill of a big win because you didn't care if you lost. And even if you do have the same values as the article assumes, all of that stuff about humans being bad predictors and naturally being inclined to gambler's fallacy and such is nothing new.

scrozier 6y ago
Absolutely. This article seems at once obvious...and wrong.
derefr 6y ago
> Jokes aside, the article starts with the assumption that there's an absolute "best" result, and doesn't really consider that "best" is relative to your value system. I'm pretty sure the article is grounded in a utilitarian framework where "best" means "the thing that gets you the most of what you personally want."
- smogcutter 6y ago
  The study as described pretty clearly defines “best” as “gets the greatest reward as defined by the game”. But this is actually totally beside the point of the article, which is that we’re bad at recognizing small differences in probability and over weight recent experience. The headline is misleading, it isn’t really about deliberately making bad choices. When the winning pattern was clear players chose it more often, and when it was less apparent they chose it less often.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >I'm pretty sure the article is grounded in a utilitarian framework where "best" means "the thing that gets you the most of what you personally want." Which is still naive, as if the same person can't/won't want conflicting things...
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
  If it was, then why would it criticize your choice to take the longer route home without first asking if shortest commute outweighs all other benefits to you?

scrozier 6y ago

Absolutely. This article seems at once obvious...and wrong.

derefr 6y ago

> Jokes aside, the article starts with the assumption that there's an absolute "best" result, and doesn't really consider that "best" is relative to your value system. I'm pretty sure the article is grounded in a utilitarian framework where "best" means "the thing that gets you the most of what you personally want."

smogcutter 6y ago
The study as described pretty clearly defines “best” as “gets the greatest reward as defined by the game”. But this is actually totally beside the point of the article, which is that we’re bad at recognizing small differences in probability and over weight recent experience. The headline is misleading, it isn’t really about deliberately making bad choices. When the winning pattern was clear players chose it more often, and when it was less apparent they chose it less often.
coldtea 6y ago
>I'm pretty sure the article is grounded in a utilitarian framework where "best" means "the thing that gets you the most of what you personally want." Which is still naive, as if the same person can't/won't want conflicting things...
OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
If it was, then why would it criticize your choice to take the longer route home without first asking if shortest commute outweighs all other benefits to you?