3 ms·
Nick didn't lose 827 million dollars. Nick lost his job. Nick behaved rationally. Every choice was a choice between certainly losing his job, and maybe losing h
by ouid 4y ago
Nick didn't lose 827 million dollars. Nick lost his job. Nick behaved rationally. Every choice was a choice between certainly losing his job, and maybe losing his job.
- rawgabbit 4y agoCorrect. I find this argument better explains the Nick Baring irrationality than the "Cognitive Overload" theory as detailed in the article or the "reference point" theory also mentioned. Nick framed the problem as losing/not losing his job. He didn't think in terms of a multi equation, multi variable math problem. From what I know of gamblers who lost their life savings in Vegas. They said something similar. They lost a small nominal amount. Their losses increased when they tried to recoup their losses by taking riskier losing bets. That is they framed the problem as loss/not loss. That is people will literally risk everything they have to prevent a small loss.
- ouid 4y agoI believe that you have missed my point. Nick behaved rationally. Someone lost 827 million dollars, but it wasn't Nick. Nick lost his job.