I was briefly tempted to answer 10 cents to the first problem.
one study was done at University of Toledo″ -- where the mean score on his test was 0.57 out of a possible 3 -- ″and one study was done at Princeton,″ where the mean was 1.63
I’m just thrilled to think of how dumb our elite (top 10% and top 2% respectively?) are.
Almost a third of high scorers preferred a 1 percent chance of $5,000 to a sure $60.
Maybe those are just the high scorers who got 3⁄3 (avoiding the tempting surface error) almost by sheer chance.
I got 3⁄3 and I would take the chance. My rational is that $60 is almost nothing. I can make that very quickly, and it won’t buy much. I won’t notice it in my monthly finances. $5000, on the other hand, is actually worth considering. That could change my month significantly (and impact the rest of my year as well). Would you rather have a 100% chance of getting a nickel, or a 0.01% chance of getting a small diamond?
Exactly! This is gambling, isn’t it? A small expected loss, with a tiny chance of some huge gain.
If your utility for money really is so disproportionate to the actual dollar value, then you probably ought to take a trip to Las Vegas and lay down a few long-odds bets. You’ll almost certainly lose your betting money (but you wouldn’t “notice it in [your] monthly finances”), while there’s some (small) chance that you get lucky and “change [your] month considerably”.
It’s not hypothetical! You can do this in the real world! Go to Vegas right now.
(If the plane flight is bothering you, I’m sure we could locate some similar online betting opportunities.)
That sort of attitude (among my opponents) is very helpful to my poker bankroll. You’re giving up $60 for $50 of expected value. Even given your risk-seeking preference, surely you can find a better gamble. Putting it on a single number in roulette would be a better deal.
By the way, welcome to Less Wrong (I notice you had some comments on Overcoming Bias as well); you should check out the welcome thread if you haven’t already.
I’d be almost guaranteed to lose the diamond before I could liquidate it if I won it. Should I factor that in or not? Diamonds are also notoriously difficult to liquidate unless you are in the relevant cartel...
I would guess that most people who got the first problem correct also had “10 cents” as their initial thought, for about a half or second or so before they had finished reading the question and before they had actually started deliberatively thinking about the problem.
I was briefly tempted to answer 10 cents to the first problem.
I’m just thrilled to think of how dumb our elite (top 10% and top 2% respectively?) are.
Maybe those are just the high scorers who got 3⁄3 (avoiding the tempting surface error) almost by sheer chance.
I got 3⁄3 and I would take the chance. My rational is that $60 is almost nothing. I can make that very quickly, and it won’t buy much. I won’t notice it in my monthly finances. $5000, on the other hand, is actually worth considering. That could change my month significantly (and impact the rest of my year as well). Would you rather have a 100% chance of getting a nickel, or a 0.01% chance of getting a small diamond?
What if we transform the problem, so that you have the opportunity to pay $60 for a 1% chance to gain $5000?
Exactly! This is gambling, isn’t it? A small expected loss, with a tiny chance of some huge gain.
If your utility for money really is so disproportionate to the actual dollar value, then you probably ought to take a trip to Las Vegas and lay down a few long-odds bets. You’ll almost certainly lose your betting money (but you wouldn’t “notice it in [your] monthly finances”), while there’s some (small) chance that you get lucky and “change [your] month considerably”.
It’s not hypothetical! You can do this in the real world! Go to Vegas right now.
(If the plane flight is bothering you, I’m sure we could locate some similar online betting opportunities.)
That sort of attitude (among my opponents) is very helpful to my poker bankroll. You’re giving up $60 for $50 of expected value. Even given your risk-seeking preference, surely you can find a better gamble. Putting it on a single number in roulette would be a better deal.
By the way, welcome to Less Wrong (I notice you had some comments on Overcoming Bias as well); you should check out the welcome thread if you haven’t already.
I’d be almost guaranteed to lose the diamond before I could liquidate it if I won it. Should I factor that in or not? Diamonds are also notoriously difficult to liquidate unless you are in the relevant cartel...
I would guess that most people who got the first problem correct also had “10 cents” as their initial thought, for about a half or second or so before they had finished reading the question and before they had actually started deliberatively thinking about the problem.