#amos tversky

[calicojack1718]

The Passing of Daniel Kahneman, Personal Hero and Inspiration of Ye Olde Blogge

SUMMARY: Daniel Kahneman died at age 90 on 27 March 2024. He was the co-founder of behavioral economics along with the late Amos Tversky, for which he won a Nobel Prize in economics. Kahneman’s work will have an enduring influence on the way we view decision making and human behavior. Ye Olde Blogge was greatly inspired by his work and used it to help explain and predict voting patterns, the…

[usunezukoinezu]

''What is more likely, that a seven-letter word randomly selected from a novel would end in ing or has the letter “n” as its sixth letter? This highlights both the availability bias and the conjunction fallacy. All seven-letter words ending with ing have the letter “n” as its sixth letter, but not all with the letter “n” as its sixth letter end in ing. Again, the driving force for the conjunction fallacy is the availability bias. Words ending with ing come to mind more easily.''

-Tversky and Kahneman, Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment

[june-of-earth]

“The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.”

​— Amos Tversky​

[icaruspendragon]

“Feelings do far more than help us engage with articles, speeches, and books. They drive our rational conclusions, in the sense that the conclusions are just an excuse to justify the feelings. Influential research looking at how people make decisions, done by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, exposed the myth that people make choices in a fully rational way. Many of our financial choices illustrate that, as do our electoral ones. Often in elections, people follow their feelings and only later come up with reasons for their actions and beliefs. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump masterfully played on people’s feelings, on their need to vent their anger over changes in society. Thanks to those feelings, some voters ended up supporting a man whose policies wouldn’t benefit them. Trump pushed lots of positive messages—Make America Great Again—but his underlying tactic was to arouse the feelings of people who felt marginalized and bypassed by other races, other countries, and by women, and to affirm the validity of those feelings. Maybe their desire for a powerful dad and a strong, decisive leader prompted such people to vote for someone who would later do nothing for them. But it wasn’t rationality that guided them; it was their feelings.”

-Writing to Persuade: How to Bring People Over to Your Side - Trish Hall

[azspot]

The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.

Amos Tversky

[nicdevera]

daniel kahneman died. someone do a cartoon, kahneman goes to heaven, amos tversky's there: "hey danny, i've got an idea for a paper"

[kendinigelistir]

YAVAŞ ve HIZLI DÜŞÜNMEK

Doğum tarihinizi oluşturan 8 rakamı yüksek sesle söyleyin.

Şimdi de bu 8 rakamı yüksek sesle tersten söyleyin.

Birincinisi söylerken, beyniniz Sistem 1 ile çalıştı. Hiç düşünmeden, hızlıca söyleyiverdiniz.

İkinicisini söylemeye çalışırken ise yavaşladınız, duraksadınız, zorlandınız. Beyniniz bu alışık olmadığınız görevi yerine getirirken Sistem 2 ile çalıştı.

Beynimizde iki farklı sistemin olduğunu keşfeden bilim insanları Daniel Kahneman ve Amos Tversky, bu buluşlarıyla Nobel ödülü aldılar.

YAZININ TAMAMI : https://www.kendinigelistir.com/yavas-ve-hizli-dusunmek/

[eregyrn-falls]

Okay, I'm not ashamed to admit that I hadn't heard of "the conjunction fallacy" before! So I looked it up, and here it is for those others who haven't heard of it. (I'm also not sure that it's an example of the Conjuction Fallacy, exactly; but I'll get to that.)

From the Wikipedia article (a bit long, but thorough):

The conjunction fallacy (also known as the Linda problem) is an inference that a conjoint set of two or more specific conclusions is likelier than any single member of that same set, in violation of the laws of probability. It is a type of formal fallacy. The most often-cited example of this fallacy originated with Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.[2][3][4] Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable? 1. Linda is a bank teller. 2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. The majority of those asked chose option 2. However, the probability of two events occurring together (that is, in conjunction) is always less than or equal to the probability of either one occurring itself. (I cut out a bit here that wouldn't copy that well; see the original article for a written mathematical formula that expresses this.) For example, even choosing a very low probability of Linda's being a bank teller, say Pr(Linda is a bank teller) = 0.05 and a high probability that she would be a feminist, say Pr(Linda is a feminist) = 0.95, then, assuming these two facts are independent of each other, Pr(Linda is a bank teller and Linda is a feminist) = 0.05 × 0.95 or 0.0475, lower than Pr(Linda is a bank teller). Tversky and Kahneman argue that most people get this problem wrong because they use a heuristic (an easily calculated) procedure called representativeness to make this kind of judgment: Option 2 seems more "representative" of Linda from the description of her, even though it is clearly mathematically less likely.[4] In other demonstrations, they argued that a specific scenario seemed more likely because of representativeness, but each added detail would actually make the scenario less and less likely. In this way it could be similar to the misleading vividness or slippery slope fallacies. More recently Kahneman has argued that the conjunction fallacy is a type of extension neglect.[5]

If I'm reading the intention of that tag correctly, the reason the Fairy vs. Walrus question is an example of the Conjunction Fallacy is because, as the OP here says, we're not just evaluating

"Would I be more surprised to run into a walrus?"

We're evaluating

"Would I be more surprised if a walrus knocked on my door?"

The second option is much more unlikely than the first one, because the first one has only one apparent requirement -- that I encounter a walrus (an animal that I know exists).

(This is leaving aside the fact that, if just asked the question, everybody is also evaluating unspoken conditions, such as our own individual likelihood to run into a walrus based on where we live and if we might normally expect there to be a live walrus in the vicinity... although, note that the simpler statement actually doesn't specify a live walrus. If you read further conditions into this, and suppose that "a walrus" could include a taxidermy walrus in a museum display, or a plush walrus, the likelihood could actually go up for many people.)

The second option, though, adds more complications to the scenario: the walrus is an animal that we know exists, the walrus is a presumably real, living animal, because the walrus is engaged in the action of knocking at a door, and specifically, it is OUR DOOR.

So in that scenario you have to calculate the likelihood of each separate condition, and as the conjunction fallacy points out, the requirement to fulfill ALL of these conditions at once makes the scenario MORE unlikely (mathematically; but also, logically).

This now cannot be a taxidermy walrus or a plush walrus, because the walrus itself is knocking at the door. (Note how this condition would be quite different if the original question had been phrased as, "There is a knock at your door, and you open it to find a walrus".) A lot of people first pointed out that "knocking at the door", as we understand the phrase (the actual action, plus its intention as a polite declaration of presence and request for entrance), seems almost impossible for a walrus to DO, or even understand in those terms. And then, of course, as with the first statement, people are evaluating not only whether they would expect to find a live walrus where they live, but now ALSO whether the walrus could get to their door at all (if you live in an apartment building, where the walrus would have to navigate an elevator or steps, this becomes far more impossible, in addition to the question of whether you live in an area where a walrus could realistically be.)

But *IS* this an example of the Conjunction Fallacy? As demonstrated (at length) above, it's definitely worded that way. But if I'm reading it correctly, the Conjunction Fallacy supposes that the majority of people will choose the more complex statement because it seems MORE representative (i.e. contains options that feel to the respondent as if those options make it more likely).

However, it seems like the majority of respondents to the poll *rejected* the more complex statement *because* the conjunction of options were added up and made it seem more and more unlikely. As people often argued: finding a fairy had knocked on your door requires ONE very improbable thing to have happened (fairies exist despite you having thought that was not possible). The walrus requires *at least* THREE improbable things to have happened, even though "walrus exists" is a given. ("Walrus could be in your area" is already improbable; then you are adding, "walrus can get to your door", and also, "walrus knows to knock and can do so".)

So it's phrased like the examples of the Conjunction Fallacy, but most respondents didn't, in fact, engage in the fallacy.

In conclusion: TIL!

(ed. to add the actual 2 possible choices in the original quote, as I didn't realize that those, too, did not copy/paste over, lol.)

because here's the thing here's the thing the question was not "would you be more surprised to run into a fairy or a walrus" the question was "would you be more surprised to find a fairy or a walrus AT YOUR DOOR" and while no, i do not believe in fairies and would be surprised to know they EXIST i would NOT be surprised to find one at my door. HOWEVER, if a WALRUS shows up at my door i have to contend with the fact that a walrus somehow made it to my apartment specifically and knocked on my door for god knows what reason. i would be more surprised to know that a fairy EXISTS, of course, but NOT that they're at my door, do you get me?

[drjorgesblog]

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 20: Prospect theory, game theory and international territorial disputes

Prospect theory, game theory and international territorial disputes Prospect Theory, which is often associated with behavioral economics rather than game theory, shares some conceptual overlaps. Developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979, Prospect Theory describes how people choose between probabilistic alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are known.…

[renatoferreiradasilva]

O Valor Intangível: Compreendendo o Comportamento Humano, Precificação e Valor Sentimental

Em um mundo cada vez mais dominado pela lógica orientada pelo mercado, a noção de valor frequentemente transcende meros parâmetros econômicos, tocando em aspectos profundamente pessoais e culturais. Esse complexo relacionamento foi vividamente ilustrado em um experimento social, no qual um influenciador abordou estranhos oferecendo cinquenta vezes o valor de seus smartphones em troca dos dispositivos. A condição crítica era que eles deveriam entregar os telefones imediatamente, sem deletar nenhum dado pessoal. Surpreendentemente, a maioria das pessoas recusou a oferta lucrativa, revelando que o valor subjetivo desses dispositivos superava em muito o incentivo monetário. Este artigo investiga as motivações humanas por trás dessas decisões e examina suas implicações para a precificação, políticas públicas e o arcabouço legal que rege ativos intangíveis.

Valor Sentimental e Preocupações com a Privacidade

O fator mais marcante em jogo nesse cenário é o apego sentimental e as preocupações com a privacidade relacionadas aos dispositivos pessoais. Os smartphones não são meramente ferramentas; eles contêm registros íntimos, fotos, mensagens e informações pessoais, muitas vezes se tornando extensões da identidade de seus proprietários. Perder ou expor esses dados constitui uma grave violação do controle e da autonomia pessoais. Assim, o valor percebido desses dispositivos frequentemente supera seu preço de mercado, tornando-os praticamente insubstituíveis. Por exemplo, um smartphone pode conter memórias insubstituíveis ou comunicações pessoais cruciais que não podem ser recuperadas, mesmo que o dispositivo seja substituído por um modelo idêntico.

Análise Comportamental e Percepção de Risco

A teoria econômica clássica sugere que os indivíduos deveriam racionalmente aceitar uma oferta alta em troca de um bem de baixo custo. No entanto, o experimento destaca como a percepção de risco pode ofuscar o ganho monetário. Nesse caso, o risco não é simplesmente a perda do dispositivo, mas o comprometimento potencial da privacidade. A psicologia comportamental, explorada por pesquisadores como Daniel Kahneman e Amos Tversky, demonstra que as pessoas tendem a superestimar as perdas potenciais, um conceito central na teoria do prospecto. Essa teoria postula que os indivíduos avaliam os resultados potenciais com base nos ganhos e perdas percebidos em relação a um ponto de referência, em vez de resultados absolutos. Isso explica a relutância em aceitar tais ofertas, apesar da recompensa financeira substancial, pois a perda percebida de privacidade supera o benefício monetário.

Efeito de Posse: Viés Cognitivo na Propriedade

Um fenômeno bem documentado conhecido como efeito de posse ajuda a explicar por que as pessoas atribuem maior valor aos bens que já possuem. Esse viés cognitivo faz com que os indivíduos valorizem um item mais altamente simplesmente porque o possuem. No experimento, quando confrontados com a possibilidade de vender seus telefones, os participantes consideraram não apenas o preço de mercado, mas também o valor pessoal derivado da posse. Isso ilustra como a precificação de bens pessoais envolve muito mais do que uma avaliação monetária objetiva.

Falhas de Mercado e o Desafio de Precificar Intangíveis

A situação destaca uma falha de mercado clássica: a dificuldade de precificar bens com alto valor subjetivo ou intangível. Os mercados operam sob a premissa de que os preços refletem um equilíbrio entre oferta e demanda. No entanto, em mercados como o de arte ou de colecionáveis, fatores intangíveis, como gosto pessoal, significado histórico e apego emocional, podem elevar os preços muito acima de seu valor intrínseco, demonstrando como elementos subjetivos podem perturbar os modelos tradicionais de precificação. Quando um bem carrega valor emocional ou relacionado à privacidade, os mecanismos tradicionais de precificação tornam-se inadequados. Isso ressalta os limites dos modelos econômicos ao explicar o comportamento humano quando fatores intangíveis estão envolvidos.

Normas Sociais e Culturais

Normas sociais e culturais também desempenham um papel fundamental na moldagem das decisões individuais. Em muitas culturas, compartilhar dados privados, como mensagens pessoais ou fotos, é visto como altamente invasivo. Consequentemente, mesmo ofertas financeiras substanciais falham em compensar a violação percebida da privacidade e da identidade. Em sociedades onde os smartphones representam uma extensão da identidade pessoal, o simples ato de entregar um dispositivo sem apagar seu conteúdo equivale a ultrapassar uma fronteira pessoal não declarada. Essa norma social reforça a ideia de que certos itens são simplesmente inegociáveis, independentemente do preço oferecido.

Implicações Políticas: Buscando um Equilíbrio

Decisões impulsionadas por valores intangíveis têm implicações significativas para políticas públicas e legislações. No campo da privacidade de dados, a dificuldade em quantificar o valor subjetivo da privacidade exige leis que ofereçam proteções mais amplas, além de meras penalidades financeiras. Por outro lado, quando regulamentações ignoram os valores intangíveis, muitas vezes falham em atingir seus objetivos pretendidos. Por exemplo, em alguns sistemas educacionais, como em partes dos Estados Unidos e da Europa, políticas permitem que professores confisquem os smartphones dos alunos durante as aulas. Embora bem-intencionadas, essas medidas frequentemente fracassam, pois ignoram o apego emocional dos alunos a seus dispositivos, levando a uma maior resistência e a conflitos em ambientes escolares já desafiadores.

Uma abordagem mais eficaz envolveria o desenvolvimento de políticas que reconheçam essas dimensões subjetivas. Em vez de impor proibições absolutas, as instituições educacionais poderiam promover o uso responsável e equilibrado dos smartphones. Da mesma forma, as leis de privacidade poderiam ser reforçadas para garantir maior controle sobre os dados pessoais, com penalidades severas para vazamentos de dados. Ao alinhar políticas com os valores intangíveis que os indivíduos atribuem aos ativos pessoais e digitais, governos e instituições podem fomentar maior conformidade e confiança.

Conclusão

O experimento social envolvendo ofertas de alto valor por smartphones ressalta a complexidade do comportamento humano em contextos que envolvem valores intangíveis. A recusa das pessoas em se desfazer de seus dispositivos, apesar de incentivos financeiros substanciais, destaca como as considerações subjetivas muitas vezes superam as avaliações objetivas. Esse insight é crucial tanto para a teoria econômica quanto para a política pública, enfatizando a necessidade de uma compreensão mais detalhada das motivações humanas. Em última análise, políticas eficazes e práticas de mercado devem levar em conta essas dimensões intangíveis para garantir um engajamento significativo e um impacto duradouro. Legisladores e instituições devem priorizar a compreensão desses fatores subjetivos ao projetar regulamentações, fomentando ambientes onde os valores intangíveis sejam respeitados e promovendo a confiança entre as partes interessadas.

[armandotapia999]

Día 35: La Heurística de Representatividad

“Las apariencias engañan, y la similitud no siempre es sinónimo de verdad.” — Amos Tversky y Daniel Kahneman

¿Qué es la Heurística de Representatividad? La heurística de representatividad es un atajo mental que usamos para evaluar la probabilidad de que algo pertenezca a una categoría basándonos en qué tan similar parece a un prototipo o estereotipo mental. Este sesgo nos lleva a ignorar datos relevantes, como las probabilidades estadísticas, y a centrarnos únicamente en las características que…

[newristics]

Ambiguity Aversion: The Science Behind Our Fear of the Unknown

The fear of the unknown often influences our decisions. This phenomenon, known as ambiguity aversion, describes our preference for known risks over uncertain outcomes. Understanding this phenomenon can help individuals and businesses make more informed decisions, ultimately leading to better results.

What is Ambiguity Aversion?

Ambiguity aversion is a cognitive bias where people prefer options with clear, known probabilities over those with unknown probabilities. This aversion to uncertainty can lead to more conservative decisions, even when the unknown option might offer better potential rewards.

Key characteristics:

Preference for Certainty: Individuals tend to choose options with predictable outcomes.

Risk vs. Uncertainty: While risk involves known probabilities, ambiguity involves unknown probabilities, which can cause discomfort and avoidance.

Several psychological theories explain why we fear the unknown:

Prospect Theory:

Developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, prospect theory suggests that people value potential losses more than equivalent gains, leading to a stronger aversion to uncertainty.

Ellsberg Paradox:

This thought experiment by Daniel Ellsberg demonstrates that people prefer bets with known probabilities over those with unknown probabilities, even when the expected outcome is the same. This highlights our discomfort with ambiguity.

Financial Decisions:

Investors often prefer safe, low-yield investments over potentially higher-reward but uncertain options like startups or cryptocurrencies.

Medical Choices:

Patients may opt for established treatments with known outcomes rather than experimental therapies, even if the latter offers a higher chance of success.

Consumer Behaviour:

Shoppers tend to choose familiar brands over new ones despite the potential benefits of trying something new.

Overcoming Ambiguity Aversion

Gather More Information:

Reducing uncertainty by obtaining more information about the options can help make more informed decisions.

Scenario Planning:

Considering different scenarios and their potential outcomes can prepare individuals for various possibilities, reducing the fear of the unknown.

Risk Education:

Educating oneself about risk and uncertainty can lead to more balanced decision-making.

Mindfulness Practices:

Techniques such as mindfulness can help individuals manage the anxiety associated with uncertainty.

Conclusion

Ambiguity aversion is a widespread cognitive bias that significantly affects our decision-making process. By understanding the science behind this fear and adopting effective strategies offered by companies like Newristics to manage it, we can make more informed and balanced choices. This cognitive awareness allows us to analyse situations more objectively and weigh the pros and cons of various options. Embracing uncertainty and learning how to navigate it can unlock new opportunities, drive innovation, and lead to greater success in both personal and professional areas of life.

[bookeysnewsletter]

Noise: A Comprehensive Summary of Daniel Kahneman's Insights

Chapter 1 What's Noise by Daniel Kahneman

"Noise" by Daniel Kahneman is a book that explores the concept of randomness and inconsistency in decision-making and judgment. Kahneman, a Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, argues that people are often influenced by irrelevant factors, leading to mistakes and biases in their thinking. He highlights the importance of reducing "noise" in decision-making processes to improve overall performance and accuracy. The book offers practical insights and strategies for individuals and organizations to limit the impact of noise and make more rational decisions. Kahneman's work sheds light on the complexities of human cognition and behavior, offering valuable lessons for individuals seeking to navigate through a world filled with uncertainty and inconsistency.

Chapter 2 Noise by Daniel Kahneman Summary

In "Noise," Daniel Kahneman explores the concept of noise in decision-making processes and how it can lead to errors and inefficiencies. Noise refers to the variability in judgments or decisions that should be uniform, leading to inconsistent outcomes. This can happen when decision-makers are influenced by irrelevant factors or when there is no explicit standard for making choices.

Kahneman argues that noise is a systemic issue in organizations and that it can have serious consequences for individuals and societies. He suggests that reducing noise in decision-making can increase efficiency, accuracy, and fairness. To combat noise, Kahneman recommends implementing structured decision-making processes and using algorithms and technology to minimize variability in judgments.

Overall, "Noise" is a critical examination of the impact of noise on decision-making and the importance of reducing it to improve outcomes. Kahneman's insights will be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the psychology of decision-making and improving the quality of their own choices.

Chapter 3 Noise Author

Daniel Kahneman released the book "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment" in May 2021. He is a renowned psychologist and Nobel laureate known for his work in behavioral economics and decision-making.

Some of his other notable books include "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," which he co-authored with Amos Tversky. "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is considered his most popular and influential work, receiving critical acclaim and winning numerous awards, including the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award.

In terms of editions, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" has been widely praised for its insights into human decision-making processes and has been translated into multiple languages. It remains one of Kahneman's most widely-read and cited works.

Chapter 4 Noise Meaning & Theme

Noise Meaning

In his book "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment," Daniel Kahneman explores the concept of noise in decision-making. Noise refers to the random variability in judgment that can lead to inconsistencies and errors in decision-making. Kahneman argues that while bias has been well-studied and understood, noise is an equally important and often overlooked factor that can have a significant impact on the quality of decisions.

Kahneman uses the term "noise" to emphasize the unpredictability and inconsistency that can occur in decision-making processes. He argues that when judges, experts, or decision-makers are confronted with the same information and asked to make a decision, the outcomes should ideally be the same. However, in reality, there is often significant variability in the decisions made, which can be attributed to noise.

The book explores various sources of noise, including individual differences in judgment, situational influences, and cognitive biases. Kahneman argues that noise can have serious consequences, leading to inefficiency, unfairness, and poor outcomes in decision-making processes. He suggests that organizations need to be more aware of the impact of noise and take steps to reduce it in order to improve the quality of their decisions.

Overall, "Noise" by Daniel Kahneman highlights the importance of understanding and addressing the concept of noise in decision-making. By recognizing and minimizing noise, organizations and individuals can make more consistent, accurate, and fair decisions.

Noise Theme

The theme of "Noise" by Daniel Kahneman revolves around the concept of randomness and inconsistency in decision-making. Kahneman highlights how noise, or variability in judgments and perceptions, can lead to errors, biases, and inefficiencies in a variety of contexts, including healthcare, criminal justice, and business.

Additionally, the book emphasizes the importance of reducing noise by implementing standardized processes, algorithms, and feedback mechanisms to enhance decision-making and improve outcomes. Kahneman argues that by acknowledging and addressing the presence of noise, individuals and organizations can achieve greater accuracy, consistency, and fairness in their decision-making processes.

Chapter 5 Quotes of Noise

Noise quotes as follows:

1. "The world makes much less sense than you think. The coherence comes mostly from the way your mind works."

2. "Noise is a major problem in making good decisions. It leads to inconsistencies and biases that can have serious consequences."

3. "Noise is the unwanted variability in judgments that should be identical."

4. "One of the biggest sources of noise is the human brain itself. Our minds are constantly creating patterns and shortcuts that can lead to errors in judgment."

5. "Noise can lead to unjust decisions, discrimination, and inefficiency. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed."

6. "Noise is just as harmful as bias in decision making. It can lead to incorrect judgments and poor outcomes."

7. "Noise is a hidden and pervasive problem that affects all areas of our lives. It is important to be aware of its impact and take steps to reduce it."

8. "Noise can happen when two people who should be making the same judgment make different judgments. This can lead to inconsistencies and errors."

9. "Noise is a real and measurable problem that can have serious consequences. It is important to address it in order to make better decisions."

10. "We need to be aware of the noise in our decision-making processes and take steps to reduce it. Only then can we make more accurate and reliable judgments."

Chapter 6 Similar Books Like Noise

1. "The Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg - This book explores the science behind habits and how they can be changed to improve our lives.

2. "Atomic Habits" by James Clear - Similar to "The Power of Habit," this book delves into the power of small changes and habits to transform our lives.

3. "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success" by Carol S. Dweck - Dweck explores the concept of fixed versus growth mindsets and how our beliefs about our abilities can shape our success.

4. "Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance" by Angela Duckworth - Duckworth explores the importance of grit, or the combination of passion and perseverance, in achieving long-term success.

5. "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey - This classic self-help book outlines seven habits that can help individuals become more effective in their personal and professional lives.

Book  bookey.app/book/noise

Quotes  bookey.app/quote-book/noise

Atomic Habit  bookey.app/atomic-habits

Mindset  bookey.app/book/mindset

Youtube  youtube.com/watch?v=0IcznbEUqgs

Amazon  amazon.com/Noise-Human-Judgment-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0316451401

Goodreads  goodreads.com/book/show/55339408-noise

[upcomingtradera]

[gregmh-blog]

Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion

Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion https://ift.tt/wG7dxLk Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect Theory posit that individuals have loss aversion. What is loss aversion? It means that individuals experience losses more intensely than gains of the same magnitude; for instance, the psychological impact of losing a certain amount of money is greater than the pleasure derived from gaining that same amount. A key question is how much more intensely to individuals experience gains than losses? To formalize things, prospect theory assumes the following utility function: The most widely cited estimates are for these parameters are from Tversky and Kahneman (1992). In that paper they find that loss aversion λ=2.25, and α=β=0.88. We can plot the utility function with this parameterization on the graph below as follows. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20221698 One key issue, however, is that the Tversky and Kahneman (1992) loss aversion estimates came from a single study of 25 graduate students from an elite American university. How generalizable are these results? Is there a better estimate of loss aversion out there? A paper Brown et al. (2024) aims to answer this question by conducting a meta-analysis of loss aversion estimates from all studies published between 1992 and 2017. They found 607 empirical estimates of loss aversion across 150 articles. The studies came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., economics, psychology, neuroscience) and a variety of data types. Most studies (53%) relied on a lab experiment design, but 26.5% of articles identified came from a field experiment of other field data; 42% of the studies came from Europe and 30% came from North America. The unadjusted results (shown below) estimated a median loss aversion of 1.69 and mean loss aversion of 1.97. After applying a random effects meta-analytic distribution, the mean loss aversion coefficient was found to be 1.955 with a 95% probability that the true value falls between 1.820 and 2.102. https://ift.tt/JsKnWV8 These results are somewhat lower, but not disimilar to the Tversky and Kahneman (1992) estimate of 2.25. We can also compare the results to two previous meta-analysis studies of loss aversion. Neumann and Böckenholt 2014–which examined los aversion using 33 studies about consumer brand choice–reported a base model estimate of λ = 1.49 and an “enhanced model” estimate of λ = 1.73; Walasek, Mullett, and  Stewart (2018)–which examined 17 studies of gain-loss financial lotteries–estimated that λ = 1.31. In short, the Brown et al. results are higher than previous estimates, but lower than Tversky and Kahneman. You can read the full paper here. Key References Brown, Alexander L., Taisuke Imai, Ferdinand M. Vieider, and Colin F. Camerer. “Meta-analysis of empirical estimates of loss aversion.” Journal of Economic Literature 62, no. 2 (2024): 485-516. Neumann, Nico, and Ulf Böckenholt. 2014. “A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion in Product Choice.” Journal of Retailing 90 (2): 182–97. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4): 297–323. Walasek, Lukasz, Timothy L. Mullett, and Neil Stewart. 2018. “A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion in Risky Contexts.” https://ift.tt/ONuQh3R. via Healthcare Economist https://ift.tt/1VdBW4G June 26, 2024 at 08:12PM

[hugobuenodefreitas]

Paradoxo de Framing: Uma Análise Multidisciplinar

## Introdução

O paradoxo de framing é um conceito fascinante que permeia diversas áreas do conhecimento, desde a psicologia até a economia, passando pela comunicação e o marketing. Este artigo tem como objetivo explorar o paradoxo de framing de maneira abrangente, oferecendo insights valiosos para profissionais de diferentes campos.

 Que é o Paradoxo de Framing?

O paradoxo de framing refere-se à maneira como a apresentação de uma informação pode influenciar a percepção e a decisão das pessoas. Em outras palavras, a mesma informação pode ser interpretada de maneiras diferentes dependendo de como é apresentada. Este conceito foi amplamente estudado por Amos Tversky e Daniel Kahneman, que demonstraram que as pessoas não são sempre racionais em suas decisões, sendo fortemente influenciadas pelo "frame" ou "quadro" em que a informação é apresentada.

Aplicações em Diversas Áreas

Psicologia

Na psicologia, o paradoxo de framing é crucial para entender como as pessoas tomam decisões. Estudos mostram que as pessoas tendem a evitar riscos quando uma escolha é apresentada em termos de ganhos, mas são mais propensas a assumir riscos quando a mesma escolha é apresentada em termos de perdas. Este fenômeno é conhecido como "aversão à perda".

 Economia

Na economia, o framing pode influenciar decisões de investimento e consumo. Por exemplo, um investidor pode ser mais propenso a investir em um fundo que apresenta um "crescimento de 70%" em vez de um que "não cresceu 30%". Embora as duas afirmações sejam matematicamente equivalentes, a forma como são apresentadas pode influenciar a decisão do investidor.

Marketing

No marketing, o framing é uma ferramenta poderosa para influenciar o comportamento do consumidor. Um produto pode parecer mais atraente se for descrito como "95% livre de gordura" em vez de "contém 5% de gordura". A maneira como a informação é enquadrada pode fazer uma grande diferença na percepção do valor do produto.

 Comunicação

Na comunicação, o framing pode afetar a opinião pública e a interpretação de eventos. Jornalistas e comunicadores frequentemente utilizam o framing para direcionar a percepção do público sobre determinados assuntos. Por exemplo, uma notícia pode ser enquadrada de maneira a enfatizar aspectos positivos ou negativos de um evento, influenciando assim a opinião pública.

 Estudos de Caso

Caso 1: O Experimento de Tversky e Kahneman

Um dos experimentos mais famosos sobre o paradoxo de framing foi conduzido por Tversky e Kahneman. Eles apresentaram aos participantes dois cenários de um problema de saúde pública. No primeiro cenário, os participantes tinham que escolher entre um programa que salvaria 200 vidas com certeza e outro que tinha 1/3 de chance de salvar 600 vidas e 2/3 de chance de não salvar nenhuma vida. No segundo cenário, os participantes tinham que escolher entre um programa onde 400 pessoas morreriam com certeza e outro onde havia 1/3 de chance de ninguém morrer e 2/3 de chance de 600 pessoas morrerem. Embora os dois cenários fossem logicamente equivalentes, as escolhas dos participantes variaram significativamente dependendo de como o problema foi enquadrado.

Caso 2: Marketing de Produtos Alimentícios

Um estudo de marketing mostrou que consumidores preferem comprar carne rotulada como "90% magra" em vez de "10% de gordura", mesmo que as duas descrições sejam idênticas em termos de conteúdo. Este exemplo ilustra como o framing pode influenciar a percepção do consumidor e, consequentemente, suas decisões de compra.

 Implicações Éticas

O uso do framing levanta questões éticas importantes. Manipular a apresentação de informações para influenciar decisões pode ser visto como uma forma de engano. Profissionais de todas as áreas devem estar cientes das implicações éticas de suas práticas de framing e buscar um equilíbrio entre persuasão e transparência.

 Conclusão

O paradoxo de framing é um fenômeno complexo e multifacetado que tem implicações significativas em diversas áreas do conhecimento. Compreender como o framing influencia a percepção e a tomada de decisão pode ajudar profissionais a tomar decisões mais informadas e éticas. Seja na psicologia, economia, marketing ou comunicação, o framing é uma ferramenta poderosa que deve ser usada com cuidado e responsabilidade.