Looking at the four predictors in the logistic regression I thought (4) was conceptually reciprocal to (2). i.e.,
In (2) The farther the agent has to walk to the cheese, the less likely it is to do so.
Intuitively I expected—for the same reason—that in (4) the farther the agent has to walk to the top-right 5x5, the less likely it is to do _that_, and therefore, conversely, the more likely it is to go for the cheese.
You’ve called the effect in (2) “obvious”; I don’t know about you, but to me it seems it’s obvious because there’s some kind of least-effort/efficiency emergent effect, perhaps just driven by the number of steps the agent has to take, where the more effort to get a goal (cheese or top right 5x5) the less likely the agent is to get there. And that would apply to (4) as well.
Looking at the four predictors in the logistic regression I thought (4) was conceptually reciprocal to (2). i.e.,
In (2) The farther the agent has to walk to the cheese, the less likely it is to do so.
Intuitively I expected—for the same reason—that in (4) the farther the agent has to walk to the top-right 5x5, the less likely it is to do _that_, and therefore, conversely, the more likely it is to go for the cheese.
You’ve called the effect in (2) “obvious”; I don’t know about you, but to me it seems it’s obvious because there’s some kind of least-effort/efficiency emergent effect, perhaps just driven by the number of steps the agent has to take, where the more effort to get a goal (cheese or top right 5x5) the less likely the agent is to get there. And that would apply to (4) as well.