Shaky Lines On Bamboo Fun

the market for "errors" Psycho-

human preferences are the most capricious of Marge, nobody 's better than the professor explained. Maurice Allais. And no one

explains the work of prof. Allais best prof. Landsburg . Do not miss

then submit his legendary test. I propose again here for convenience:

Question 1: Which would you Rather have: A

. A million dollars for certain.

B . A lottery ticket That Gives you an 89% chance to win a million dollars, a 10% chance to win five million dollars, and a 1% chance to win nothing.

Try taking this seriously. What would you actually do if you faced this choice? Don’t bother trying to figure out the “right” answer, because there is no right answer .

Question 2 : Which would you rather have:

A. A lottery ticket that gives you an 11% chance at a million dollars (and an 89% chance of nothing)

B . A lottery ticket that gives you a 10% chance at five million dollars (and a 90% chance of nothing)

Once again, this is a matter of preference. There is no right or wrong answer.

Già, non c' è niente di irrazionale. Peccato che se scegliete A alla prima B to the second question and you are completely unreliable in 'display preferences. Like that disgusted that after he swallowed the Parmesan enthusiastic form no time in half.

But the vast majority of people choose irrational combinations. Deprimetevi not, therefore, leaving it to economists to do so.

Mille considerations spring to mind: maybe people do not take the test seriously, perhaps even change the preferences in a few seconds, maybe people prefer not to know what, maybe make mistakes and chooses what he just said Schifano ...

My explanation "favorite" is a 'else: surrender to' irrationality, when the EC you can 'afford it, is beautiful.

Or: I think many are bothered by the calculations and reasoning, as far as we recognize the 'effectiveness when put to the sat. So, especially on matters of little consequence, to rely on 'intuition in hand when they would be better ... in short, you "buy" happy mistakes arising from their lack of thoroughness.

How can 'test such a conjecture?

Maybe doing some tests where the "million dollar" tadpole really: there no longer makes sense to "buy" 's fault.

Conclusion: the verification is impossible and then I cut the post so as brutal and unsatisfying.

Again fault cuts to research, again because of Berlusconi.