Fortunately, your friend is very responsive to rational argument, and very open to answering your questions honestly. He understands that his risk/benefit calculation is subject to uncertainty, and would change his mind if further investigation changed the result.
The solution isn’t information, it’s modifying the situation through action:
Limit the number of beers: take cash, and only so much. (Issues: calling that cab.)*
‘Risk of taking dumb action after drinking beers, in the form of driving drunk’: Go. You don’t drink, so you can drive or call the cab. (May have issues.)
*Similar style technique: pay for a cab over, so there isn’t a car to drive back while drunk?
(The above doesn’t make reference to expected utility explicitly.)
You might also study the strategy of poker, under the assumption that this will increase your chances of winning.
Not necessarily about probability. And yet it’s a working heuristic. (I could say the heuristic works, if monotonicity holds, but someone who thinks of that and uses that, doesn’t need to ‘know about monotonicity’.)
By contrast, imagine that you have cancer.
The way that conclusion is arrived at might be illuminating, for the purpose you have in mind.
almost always
The probability might be useful here—though the information is not actually in the form of a probability.
In this situation, it might be very hard to determine whether you’re more likely than the average patient to experience spontaneous remission, survive the therapy, or suffer a permanent disability.
Actually, you can examine risk factors, or things you have that might be. For example, maybe if you have diabetes, then that changes the risk—specifically increases it. There’s also factors like your age.
and we have little faith in our ability to sort out good advice from bad, how do we decide whether to focus on P and/or V, and how to go about it?
That part seems rather key to your argument. Maybe people normally solve the problem by...conducting research, and seeing if they think they have a better idea of what to do after doing the research/a better understanding.
For example, some people find the idea of using a spreadsheet to evaluate and compare potential romantic partners to be equal parts horrible and ridiculous.
How do they usually feel about...taking action and acquiring more information? i.e. finding out more about said potential partners, doing stuff together, finding out who also has an interest in them, etc.?
(Spreadsheet repulsion doesn’t sound like it’s about gathering information, imo.)
or our father has bought Jordan Peterson’s books and is now eating nothing but steak
...
then we might equally be said to be against their taste in decision-making.
Does eating only steak cause gout?
If someone you know likes going to a fast food restaurant and you don’t want to (and suggest not going) because recent events make you think that the risk of food poisoning is high, and they go anyway and get sick, they might change their mind about the risks. ‘I’ve never had food poisoning before, but having it now, I understand why you avoid it. This is awful.’
It is [simple] to deny three simplistic ideas.
ice cream
A desire to eat delicious foods, versus a desire to eat healthy foods, might be resolved by finding more foods that are both.
The identities have little to do with rationality, and encompass epistemics, morality, and strategy.
identity? Sounds more like strategy.
Arguably, the point of a strategy is saving time. Arguing with other people about strategy may just lose time, with nothing to show for it.
At some point, whoever has agency will have to commit to a plan, and then work on the next round of information-gathering about how best to execute it.
At some point, you have to stop planning and execute the plan. (Not strictly true, in that planning can occur within and after action, but there is a difference between action and not action that often shows up around ‘planning’.)
The only victory is convergence on the truth.
There can be ‘victory in the world’. If different people disagree about what strategy to use, all go out and use their strategy, and all succeed, then arguably there isn’t a truth issue. Some things can be accomplished multiple ways. Disagreements about the ‘best way’ may be meaningless.
If you believe, as you should, that the information you have on a topic warrants your level of confidence on that topic, then it makes some sense to work to persuade others to accept both the information you have and update their confidence accordingly.
Why? Do you need others help to execute the plan, or is ‘consensus’ your goal? (It need not be a value that everyone has, though depending on circumstance it may be useful.)
Bellamy
This was a good example because the ‘planning’ and ‘gaining information’ reduced the available possibilities in a useful way for the goal. (While action also had this property, the two routes were arguably somewhat outcome equivalent, while one was faster—talking to the host.)
The solution isn’t information, it’s modifying the situation through action:
Limit the number of beers: take cash, and only so much. (Issues: calling that cab.)*
‘Risk of taking dumb action after drinking beers, in the form of driving drunk’: Go. You don’t drink, so you can drive or call the cab. (May have issues.)
*Similar style technique: pay for a cab over, so there isn’t a car to drive back while drunk?
(The above doesn’t make reference to expected utility explicitly.)
Not necessarily about probability. And yet it’s a working heuristic. (I could say the heuristic works, if monotonicity holds, but someone who thinks of that and uses that, doesn’t need to ‘know about monotonicity’.)
The way that conclusion is arrived at might be illuminating, for the purpose you have in mind.
The probability might be useful here—though the information is not actually in the form of a probability.
Actually, you can examine risk factors, or things you have that might be. For example, maybe if you have diabetes, then that changes the risk—specifically increases it. There’s also factors like your age.
That part seems rather key to your argument. Maybe people normally solve the problem by...conducting research, and seeing if they think they have a better idea of what to do after doing the research/a better understanding.
How do they usually feel about...taking action and acquiring more information? i.e. finding out more about said potential partners, doing stuff together, finding out who also has an interest in them, etc.?
(Spreadsheet repulsion doesn’t sound like it’s about gathering information, imo.)
Does eating only steak cause gout?
If someone you know likes going to a fast food restaurant and you don’t want to (and suggest not going) because recent events make you think that the risk of food poisoning is high, and they go anyway and get sick, they might change their mind about the risks. ‘I’ve never had food poisoning before, but having it now, I understand why you avoid it. This is awful.’
A desire to eat delicious foods, versus a desire to eat healthy foods, might be resolved by finding more foods that are both.
identity? Sounds more like strategy.
Arguably, the point of a strategy is saving time. Arguing with other people about strategy may just lose time, with nothing to show for it.
At some point, you have to stop planning and execute the plan. (Not strictly true, in that planning can occur within and after action, but there is a difference between action and not action that often shows up around ‘planning’.)
There can be ‘victory in the world’. If different people disagree about what strategy to use, all go out and use their strategy, and all succeed, then arguably there isn’t a truth issue. Some things can be accomplished multiple ways. Disagreements about the ‘best way’ may be meaningless.
Why? Do you need others help to execute the plan, or is ‘consensus’ your goal? (It need not be a value that everyone has, though depending on circumstance it may be useful.)
This was a good example because the ‘planning’ and ‘gaining information’ reduced the available possibilities in a useful way for the goal. (While action also had this property, the two routes were arguably somewhat outcome equivalent, while one was faster—talking to the host.)