It’s a word you use with wild abandon. If you want to communicate (as opposed to just spill a mind dump onto a page), you should care because otherwise people will not understand what you are trying to say.
I’m trying to come up with a system that will tell us what decisions we should make
There are a lot of those, starting with WWJD and ending with emulating nature that is red in tooth and claw. The question is on which basis will you prefer a system over another one.
It’s a word you use with wild abandon. If you want to communicate (as opposed to just spill a mind dump onto a page), you should care because otherwise people will not understand what you are trying to say.
Everyone except VincentYu seems to understand what I’m saying. I do not understand where people are getting confused. The word “utility” has more meanings than “that thing which is produced by the VNM axioms”.
The question is on which basis will you prefer a system over another one.
The preference should be too what extent it would make the same decisions you would. This post was the argue that expected utility doesn’t and can not do that. And to show some alternatives which might.
I do not understand where people are getting confused.
I just told you.
If you want to understand where people are getting confused, perhaps you should listen to them.
The preference should be too what extent it would make the same decisions you would.
Huh? First, why would I need a system to make the same decisions I’m going to make by default? Second, who is that “you”? For particular values of “you”, building a system that replicates the preferences of that specific individual is going to be a really bad idea.
It’s a word you use with wild abandon. If you want to communicate (as opposed to just spill a mind dump onto a page), you should care because otherwise people will not understand what you are trying to say.
There are a lot of those, starting with WWJD and ending with emulating nature that is red in tooth and claw. The question is on which basis will you prefer a system over another one.
Everyone except VincentYu seems to understand what I’m saying. I do not understand where people are getting confused. The word “utility” has more meanings than “that thing which is produced by the VNM axioms”.
The preference should be too what extent it would make the same decisions you would. This post was the argue that expected utility doesn’t and can not do that. And to show some alternatives which might.
I just told you.
If you want to understand where people are getting confused, perhaps you should listen to them.
Huh? First, why would I need a system to make the same decisions I’m going to make by default? Second, who is that “you”? For particular values of “you”, building a system that replicates the preferences of that specific individual is going to be a really bad idea.
Building a reasonably comprehensible system that replicates the preferences of a specific individual could at least be somewhat enlightening.
Houshalter clearly wants not a descriptive, but a normative system.