Your argument boils down to “Calculating expected utilities is hard, therefore its rarely worth trying.” I agree with the premise, but the conclusion goes too far.
There are many situations in which I have done better by considering possible outcomes, the associated likelihoods, and payoffs. I have used this reasoning in my (short) career, in decisions about investing/insurance, in my relationships, and in considering what charities are worthwhile.
Yes, in many situations good habits and heuristics are more useful than thinking about probabilities, but you get mighty close to reifying our “intuitive decision procedure” aka our stone-age brain which was programmed to maximize inclusive fitness (which does not weigh heavily in my utility function) in an environment which was very different from the one in which we now find ourselves.
Your argument boils down to “Calculating expected utilities is hard, therefore its rarely worth trying.”
I think this fails to capture an important point Roko made. If living according to expected utility calculations was merely hard, but didn’t carry significant risks beyond the time spent doing the calculations, the statement “trying to run your life based upon expected utility maximization is not a good idea” would not carry much weight. However:
There are many other pitfalls: One is thinking that you know what is of value in your life, and forgetting what the most important things are
This is the real problem, and it seems more about calibration than accuracy.
Your argument boils down to “Calculating expected utilities is hard, therefore its rarely worth trying.” I agree with the premise, but the conclusion goes too far.
There are many situations in which I have done better by considering possible outcomes, the associated likelihoods, and payoffs. I have used this reasoning in my (short) career, in decisions about investing/insurance, in my relationships, and in considering what charities are worthwhile.
Yes, in many situations good habits and heuristics are more useful than thinking about probabilities, but you get mighty close to reifying our “intuitive decision procedure” aka our stone-age brain which was programmed to maximize inclusive fitness (which does not weigh heavily in my utility function) in an environment which was very different from the one in which we now find ourselves.
I think this fails to capture an important point Roko made. If living according to expected utility calculations was merely hard, but didn’t carry significant risks beyond the time spent doing the calculations, the statement “trying to run your life based upon expected utility maximization is not a good idea” would not carry much weight. However:
This is the real problem, and it seems more about calibration than accuracy.
It is certainly the case that there are some situations where utility maximization works well, such as investment.
You used utility maximization to manage a relationship? Or to choose a partner? I’d like to hear more.