6 ms·

Terence Tao: "It can become more rational to think and act more boldly"

109 points by bertman 2y ago

mont_tag 2y ago
Python code to match the article: from statistics import NormalDist def var(nd): 'Value at risk' return nd.stdev - nd.mean safe = NormalDist(5, 3) bold = NormalDist(9, 10) shock = NormalDist(-5, 10) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tBaseline' % (var(safe), var(bold))) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tConstant shock' % (var(safe - 5), var(bold - 5))) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tUncorrelated shock' % (var(safe + shock), var(bold + shock))) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tCorrelated shock' % (var(safe * 2), var(bold *2)))
biomcgary 2y ago
Am I correct to assume people are upvoting this as a possible explanation for the outcome of the US Presidential election? I.e., if people think that they are in economic doldrums or decline, taking a risk seems better than the status quo? Voting out the incumbent party seems popular during economic downturns (real or perceived) unless the party clearly inherited the economic crisis AND seems to be addressing the problem energetically (e.g., post-1929 FDR).
- hyperpape 2y ago
  I immediately jumped to a commentary on the impacts of AI, but really it's probably a bit of a Rohrschach test.
- brailsafe 2y ago
  I had a similar thought recently as someone not in the U.S and who doesn't care that much. If hypothetically prompted, there's a way in which I could say "Well it was more sensible to vote for Trump". If no other context was asked for, I'd probably be thought of as a Trump person, but if it was, I'd explain that I can see why a lot of people preferred him or didn't prefer the other, therefore for them it's sensible, and democracy worked as intended.
  - immibis 2y ago
    It's incredible how, unlike the first Trump presidency, nobody is trying to convince anyone that a Trump presidency will be bad. It's as if all relevant information has already been shared and there is no point in repeating it. Instead they just shift all their money to the stock market and Tesla, and/or leave the state or country.
    - brailsafe 2y ago
      Which ultimately is the best course of action, but whoever would try doesn't have much of a compelling alternative to suggest, and probably it doesn't matter that much. As a citizen you can vote, and beyond that you're probably wasting your (expensive) time and energy. To me it's akin to the people who stay in their hometown haplessly hoping it'll eventually align with what they want it to be like (while secretly hoping it doesn't change that much in the other direction); the only answer really is to just respond sensibly and gtfo for sometimes literally greener grass. Gosh I wish my hometown would build a proper transit system, but it's completely economically destitute and fiscally conservative, and now that I live in an objectively better city that has one, the scope in which I need to care is limited to when I visit.
    - watwut 2y ago
      I have read multiple articles claiming his choices for various positions are bad. They just think they are intentionally bad, that corruption and destruction is the point for both Trump and his core supporters. It is what it is. Assuming good faith and arguing with that assumption is not a thing that makes sense anymore.
    - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
      Not what I'm reading on Substack/Ghost. I have a liberal bubble, though. https://substack.perfectunion.us/p/restaurant-chains-won-big-on-election https://substack.perfectunion.us/p/restaurant-chains-won-big... https://www.the-sentinel-intelligence.net/things-can-always-get-worse/ https://www.the-sentinel-intelligence.net/things-can-always-... https://scottsumner.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-trump-biden-trump https://scottsumner.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-trump-bid...
- immibis 2y ago
  I don't think this is sufficient to make a Trump vote logical - if you've paid any attention at all to how the Republicans and Democrats operate, the expectation value of a Republican presidency is much lower than a Democrat one, for most people, under any reasonable utility function. It really is as simple: if you feel bad, vote for the other guy. (Which is also how [REDACTED BY MODERATOR] got elected)
  - KerrAvon 2y ago
    Right wing media has been making people feel bad for 25 years straight now. They radicalized an entire generation and made them fear brown people and Democrats. Despite the fact none of it's reality-based. It's not working out too great for the country! Elon Musk continuously and publicly falling for the dumbest shit imaginable really should be the final nail in the coffin of his reputation.
    - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
      [dead]
- lapcat 2y ago
  I don't think a rational calculus can be applied to voting in a US Presidential election, because it's irrational to expect that your vote could change the outcome of the election. That's never happened, not even in Florida in 2000. You have a better chance of winning the lottery, as evidenced by the fact that people do win the lottery. Voting tends to be more of a symbolic or "ethical" act than an rational act, though one vote has occasionally made a difference in much smaller, local races. Frankly, voting "strategically" in a US Presidential election makes about as much sense as choosing lottery numbers strategically. Rhetorical question: if the voters are rational, then how do we always end up with liars, crooks, and incompetents, a choice between the lesser of evils? When was the last time a President, or a Presidential candidate, has been among the best of us? No, elections are exercises in mass irrationality, glorified beauty pageants.
  - tzs 2y ago
    Choosing lottery numbers strategically does make sense, because your expected value depends on both whether or not your number wins and on how many other people picked the same number. A lot of people pick dates, or numbers that have won recently, or that form geometric patterns on the ticket, or that form interesting sequences, and so on. Nothing you can do (assuming no bias in how the winning numbers are generated) will affect the chances your ticket wins, but by picking randomly from the set of possible tickets that doesn't include those commonly picked sets of numbers you can decrease the expected number of people you'll have to share the jackpot with.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > A lot of people pick dates Yes, birth dates of themselves and family members, which are randomly distributed in the population, and which you can't possibly know, because you don't know the identity of other lottery buyers. > or numbers that have won recently Do people do this? I'd assume they do the opposite of this. > or that form geometric patterns on the ticket, or that form interesting sequences, and so on. This is all hand-waving. Please list the numbers that I shouldn't choose. > those commonly picked sets of numbers What are those numbers? In any case, even if you eliminated several thousand numbers from the pool of possibilities, that doesn't really help you choose a specific set of numbers from the millions of possibilities, other than not those.
- darepublic 2y ago
  Yes and the incumbent strategy on this for round was largely to say "This is fine" with a notable lack of enthusiasm
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    That was the news release strategy, the actual behind the scenes strategies were a bit more enthusiastic based on what I've been reading on Substack. https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-14-2024 https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-14-2024
gmays 2y ago
"In times of great uncertainty, the relative value of "playing it safe" is reduced, since - for better or for worse - no option can now reduce risk to truly safe levels. And so, paradoxically, in times of risk and uncertainty, it can actually become more rational to think and act more boldly - or more precisely, to bring one's personal risk tolerance to match the amount of external risk present in the system."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
RA_Fisher 2y ago
Well obviously Terence isn’t an economist. People don’t minimize risk, we maximize utility.
tacitusarc 2y ago
I think this is a highly inaccurate model, and not useful. By adding risk and reward to determine outcome value, Tao is claiming that outcome value is increased by riskiness. Similarly, high risk situations with low rewards have relatively no downsides (assuming there are no external shocks). This is nonsensical. When people talk about high risk situations, they tend to conflate two things: the magnitude of potential downsides and the likelihood of success. To make his model meaningful, Tao would need to incorporate that from the start. I strongly recommend Fooled By Randomness as primer for thinking about this. There exists some (often non-Gaussian) curve for describing risk vs reward. I don’t know how you simplify that… Maybe take for number, one for the average negative value outcome and one for the average positive value outcome, and their associated probabilities. And then just add those together? I’m not sure.
- sandspar 2y ago
  You think you can dismiss Terence Tao offhand because you read a pop psychology book?
  - tacitusarc 2y ago
    I do not know who he is beyond this Mastodon post, and I do not believe I can “dismiss” him as a person. But I can recognize the relative usefulness (or lack thereof) of the idea on its merits. Being able to do so, with humility, is an important life skill.
- alimw 2y ago
  > By adding risk and reward to determine outcome value, Tao is claiming that outcome value is increased by riskiness. Tao talks about minimising "value at risk" which he defines as risk MINUS reward. If you prefer to switch signs and talk about maximising "outcome value" then that would be reward MINUS risk.
  - tacitusarc 2y ago
    “For instance, a "safe" action might have a reward of 5 and a risk of 3, which I would represent as 5±3 in this model, the return would typically range anywhere from 2 to 8 units of net benefit.” He is literally adding risk and reward to determine the upper net benefit bound.
darepublic 2y ago
I am constrained in my decision making by my subconscious. I have often in life made poor decisions out of strange compulsions driven by mood. Mathematical skills be damned

109 points by bertman 2y ago

Python code to match the article: from statistics import NormalDist def var(nd): 'Value at risk' return nd.stdev - nd.mean safe = NormalDist(5, 3) bold = NormalDist(9, 10) shock = NormalDist(-5, 10) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tBaseline' % (var(safe), var(bold))) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tConstant shock' % (var(safe - 5), var(bold - 5))) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tUncorrelated shock' % (var(safe + shock), var(bold + shock))) print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tCorrelated shock' % (var(safe * 2), var(bold *2)))

biomcgary 2y ago

Am I correct to assume people are upvoting this as a possible explanation for the outcome of the US Presidential election? I.e., if people think that they are in economic doldrums or decline, taking a risk seems better than the status quo? Voting out the incumbent party seems popular during economic downturns (real or perceived) unless the party clearly inherited the economic crisis AND seems to be addressing the problem energetically (e.g., post-1929 FDR).

hyperpape 2y ago
I immediately jumped to a commentary on the impacts of AI, but really it's probably a bit of a Rohrschach test.
brailsafe 2y ago
I had a similar thought recently as someone not in the U.S and who doesn't care that much. If hypothetically prompted, there's a way in which I could say "Well it was more sensible to vote for Trump". If no other context was asked for, I'd probably be thought of as a Trump person, but if it was, I'd explain that I can see why a lot of people preferred him or didn't prefer the other, therefore for them it's sensible, and democracy worked as intended.
- immibis 2y ago
  It's incredible how, unlike the first Trump presidency, nobody is trying to convince anyone that a Trump presidency will be bad. It's as if all relevant information has already been shared and there is no point in repeating it. Instead they just shift all their money to the stock market and Tesla, and/or leave the state or country.
  - brailsafe 2y ago
    Which ultimately is the best course of action, but whoever would try doesn't have much of a compelling alternative to suggest, and probably it doesn't matter that much. As a citizen you can vote, and beyond that you're probably wasting your (expensive) time and energy. To me it's akin to the people who stay in their hometown haplessly hoping it'll eventually align with what they want it to be like (while secretly hoping it doesn't change that much in the other direction); the only answer really is to just respond sensibly and gtfo for sometimes literally greener grass. Gosh I wish my hometown would build a proper transit system, but it's completely economically destitute and fiscally conservative, and now that I live in an objectively better city that has one, the scope in which I need to care is limited to when I visit.
  - watwut 2y ago
    I have read multiple articles claiming his choices for various positions are bad. They just think they are intentionally bad, that corruption and destruction is the point for both Trump and his core supporters. It is what it is. Assuming good faith and arguing with that assumption is not a thing that makes sense anymore.
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    Not what I'm reading on Substack/Ghost. I have a liberal bubble, though. https://substack.perfectunion.us/p/restaurant-chains-won-big-on-election https://substack.perfectunion.us/p/restaurant-chains-won-big... https://www.the-sentinel-intelligence.net/things-can-always-get-worse/ https://www.the-sentinel-intelligence.net/things-can-always-... https://scottsumner.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-trump-biden-trump https://scottsumner.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-trump-bid...
immibis 2y ago
I don't think this is sufficient to make a Trump vote logical - if you've paid any attention at all to how the Republicans and Democrats operate, the expectation value of a Republican presidency is much lower than a Democrat one, for most people, under any reasonable utility function. It really is as simple: if you feel bad, vote for the other guy. (Which is also how [REDACTED BY MODERATOR] got elected)
- KerrAvon 2y ago
  Right wing media has been making people feel bad for 25 years straight now. They radicalized an entire generation and made them fear brown people and Democrats. Despite the fact none of it's reality-based. It's not working out too great for the country! Elon Musk continuously and publicly falling for the dumbest shit imaginable really should be the final nail in the coffin of his reputation.
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    [dead]
lapcat 2y ago
I don't think a rational calculus can be applied to voting in a US Presidential election, because it's irrational to expect that your vote could change the outcome of the election. That's never happened, not even in Florida in 2000. You have a better chance of winning the lottery, as evidenced by the fact that people do win the lottery. Voting tends to be more of a symbolic or "ethical" act than an rational act, though one vote has occasionally made a difference in much smaller, local races. Frankly, voting "strategically" in a US Presidential election makes about as much sense as choosing lottery numbers strategically. Rhetorical question: if the voters are rational, then how do we always end up with liars, crooks, and incompetents, a choice between the lesser of evils? When was the last time a President, or a Presidential candidate, has been among the best of us? No, elections are exercises in mass irrationality, glorified beauty pageants.
- tzs 2y ago
  Choosing lottery numbers strategically does make sense, because your expected value depends on both whether or not your number wins and on how many other people picked the same number. A lot of people pick dates, or numbers that have won recently, or that form geometric patterns on the ticket, or that form interesting sequences, and so on. Nothing you can do (assuming no bias in how the winning numbers are generated) will affect the chances your ticket wins, but by picking randomly from the set of possible tickets that doesn't include those commonly picked sets of numbers you can decrease the expected number of people you'll have to share the jackpot with.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > A lot of people pick dates Yes, birth dates of themselves and family members, which are randomly distributed in the population, and which you can't possibly know, because you don't know the identity of other lottery buyers. > or numbers that have won recently Do people do this? I'd assume they do the opposite of this. > or that form geometric patterns on the ticket, or that form interesting sequences, and so on. This is all hand-waving. Please list the numbers that I shouldn't choose. > those commonly picked sets of numbers What are those numbers? In any case, even if you eliminated several thousand numbers from the pool of possibilities, that doesn't really help you choose a specific set of numbers from the millions of possibilities, other than not those.
darepublic 2y ago
Yes and the incumbent strategy on this for round was largely to say "This is fine" with a notable lack of enthusiasm
- anonymouskimmer 2y ago
  That was the news release strategy, the actual behind the scenes strategies were a bit more enthusiastic based on what I've been reading on Substack. https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-14-2024 https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-14-2024

gmays 2y ago

"In times of great uncertainty, the relative value of "playing it safe" is reduced, since - for better or for worse - no option can now reduce risk to truly safe levels. And so, paradoxically, in times of risk and uncertainty, it can actually become more rational to think and act more boldly - or more precisely, to bring one's personal risk tolerance to match the amount of external risk present in the system."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

RA_Fisher 2y ago

Well obviously Terence isn’t an economist. People don’t minimize risk, we maximize utility.

tacitusarc 2y ago

I think this is a highly inaccurate model, and not useful. By adding risk and reward to determine outcome value, Tao is claiming that outcome value is increased by riskiness. Similarly, high risk situations with low rewards have relatively no downsides (assuming there are no external shocks). This is nonsensical. When people talk about high risk situations, they tend to conflate two things: the magnitude of potential downsides and the likelihood of success. To make his model meaningful, Tao would need to incorporate that from the start. I strongly recommend Fooled By Randomness as primer for thinking about this. There exists some (often non-Gaussian) curve for describing risk vs reward. I don’t know how you simplify that… Maybe take for number, one for the average negative value outcome and one for the average positive value outcome, and their associated probabilities. And then just add those together? I’m not sure.

sandspar 2y ago
You think you can dismiss Terence Tao offhand because you read a pop psychology book?
- tacitusarc 2y ago
  I do not know who he is beyond this Mastodon post, and I do not believe I can “dismiss” him as a person. But I can recognize the relative usefulness (or lack thereof) of the idea on its merits. Being able to do so, with humility, is an important life skill.
alimw 2y ago
> By adding risk and reward to determine outcome value, Tao is claiming that outcome value is increased by riskiness. Tao talks about minimising "value at risk" which he defines as risk MINUS reward. If you prefer to switch signs and talk about maximising "outcome value" then that would be reward MINUS risk.
- tacitusarc 2y ago
  “For instance, a "safe" action might have a reward of 5 and a risk of 3, which I would represent as 5±3 in this model, the return would typically range anywhere from 2 to 8 units of net benefit.” He is literally adding risk and reward to determine the upper net benefit bound.

darepublic 2y ago

I am constrained in my decision making by my subconscious. I have often in life made poor decisions out of strange compulsions driven by mood. Mathematical skills be damned