Well, there's the old 'exploit-vs-explore' tradeoff, and it's well known in decision theory that without perfect information (and in real life, there's never perfect information) it's not optimal to always take the 'best' decision according to currently known information, sometimes you should take a potentially worse choice just to gain information about how good that other alternative is.
In particular, the study mentioned here does not seem to take this into account.
In summary, it took the form of a simple game, for which many players deduced the optimal strategy. They then modified its behavior, without notifying the subjects, so that the optimal strategy remained the same, but was less successful, and many players strayed from the optimal behavior. So were they exploring? Had they simply lost confidence in their earlier assumptions about how the game worked? We don't know why they strayed, because "while the answer to that is beyond the scope of this study, Krajbich said, it likely takes a lot of mental energy and planning to always make decisions based on your knowledge of the environment."
Notice, in that quote, the willingness to speculate about a cause despite an experimental design that could not deliver evidence on the issue... (To be fair, I probably would not have noticed that inconsistency if Krajbich had picked a putative explanation that I speculate is more probable.)
Opportunity cost seems to be at least one of the factors it's not accounting for. If you know a strategy that produces a reasonable reward consistently, then trialing a strategy that produces a higher reward less consistently is a risk, and you can't know whether it will pay off in the long term until you've already committed to forgo the consistent rewards for the period of your trial run. This study could have just as easily been about risk aversion.
Then you also have the opportunity cost of what you choose to optimize. Perhaps making sub-optimal choices is fine in areas that aren't important to you for whatever reason. You have to make choices all day, you don't have enough time or energy to optimize all of them. If you want to succeed in whatever your highest priority goals are, then I'd suggest that you should only bother to optimize things that are actually going to help you achieve them. Devoting significant effort to optimizing things that don't matter is usually called bike-shedding, and I think a lot of us would have experienced how that can come at the expense of things that actually matter.
I'd also suggest that focusing on overly narrow set of factors can skew the results. The author talked about commute routes, and I know that my usual commute route is sub-optimal from a time perspective. I know there are routes that can give me 5-10 minutes in time. But I usually don't choose them, because I'm usually not optimizing for time on my commute. After a days work, I'll usually prefer to take the slow mindless crawl down the freeway, over the 20-left-turn route that gets me home some inconsequential amount of time faster.
Agreed. The risk of the decision seems to be very important in this experiment yet not mentioned. With high risk exploration is out of the question, but with low risk exploration is very logical behaviour (with potential high reward)
this seems to be the underlying principle of creativity, and presumably intelligence and wisdom, as well. the brain makes wacky connections all the time and creativity emerges as a random subset of those that rise into the conscious mind.
Jokes aside, the article starts with the assumption that there's an absolute "best" result, and doesn't really consider that "best" is relative to your value system.
If you choose to take the slower route home, maybe you just find it less frustrating. If you don't choose the optimal game strategy, maybe you just want the thrill of a big win because you didn't care if you lost.
And even if you do have the same values as the article assumes, all of that stuff about humans being bad predictors and naturally being inclined to gambler's fallacy and such is nothing new.
> Jokes aside, the article starts with the assumption that there's an absolute "best" result, and doesn't really consider that "best" is relative to your value system.
I'm pretty sure the article is grounded in a utilitarian framework where "best" means "the thing that gets you the most of what you personally want."
The study as described pretty clearly defines “best” as “gets the greatest reward as defined by the game”.
But this is actually totally beside the point of the article, which is that we’re bad at recognizing small differences in probability and over weight recent experience. The headline is misleading, it isn’t really about deliberately making bad choices. When the winning pattern was clear players chose it more often, and when it was less apparent they chose it less often.
If it was, then why would it criticize your choice to take the longer route home without first asking if shortest commute outweighs all other benefits to you?
This presupposes that past performance predicts future results. In a world where we have incomplete information and a limited timeframe to assess relative to the universe of possibilities (the real world), a 60% chance is effectively indistinguishable from a coin flip. Once you introduce the possibility of an antagonistic opponent who might flip the odds at any given time, and account for the early mover's advantage of being first to adapt to new information, acting on what's always worked in the past starts to look naive.
I also think the random deviation from "best" strategy isn't realistic.
In the real world, true randomness is kind of unusual. There's usually some kind of spatial or temporal autocorrelation.
So something might change in a quasi-random way, but it often doesn't just return to "normal" immediately. There's often something continuing (like an antagonist, or some environmental variable that decays over time, but slowly).
So these random "blips" do happen in reality, but they're not normal. What's more normal is for there to be changes, and for those changes to be somewhat, but not completely, stable with some decay. They might not decay at all.
It seems to me this, evolutionary speaking, this would make sense. A sudden change in the rewards can indicate that the environment has changed, and rather than acting as you always have you should act in the way that maximizes the rewards you get in this new environment. At least in situations where it is not obvious why the environment changed.
Yeah, this also reminded me of the way that Neural networks that play video games might make a new connection that is not super efficient, but by a combination of reasons ended up being more effective than it might usually be in that scenario.
The AI's often end up giving that pathway a try a few more times before giving up on it.
Akrasia (/əˈkreɪziə/; Greek ἀκρασία, "lacking command"), occasionally transliterated as acrasia or Anglicised as acrasy or acracy, is described as a lack of self-control or the state of acting against one's better judgment. The problem goes back at least as far as Plato. In Plato's Protagoras Socrates asks precisely how it is possible that, if one judges action A to be the best course of action, one would do anything other than A?
Anyone have a link to the actual study? The analogy with the streets makes it sound like subjects are following correct bandit-algorithm strategy because they don't know (and have no way of knowing) the variability in outcomes is truly random
People are generally bad at probability without training, if you introduce random chance into any process it’s really going to throw most people.
Also, it’s a black box. You try something and it gives you the best rewards. You try it again and it works again! Then it fails. Your immediate reaction is not “let’s run a long experiment and see what the p value is”, your reaction is “I guess it’s random”
Consider something simple and everyday like a test to see if you have <virus>. There is a true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative. It could be any one of the four. When we think that there are only two outcomes, we lose track of probability quickly.
You can't really look at these independantly. There are lots of ways to slice up the results, you just to be careful and clear about what you are doing.
It strikes me that in at least some of these examples, the subject may know the best decision, but they might not know that they know it.
For example, you might have prior experience that your gut is more reliable than your conscious thinking.
Or in the example of Main Street and Spruce Street, the subject might have taken the new experience that the Spruce Street route was faster than expected to wonder whether they _really_ know that Main Street is usually the better route.
Anyway. If you liked this article, you may be interested in looking up experimental philosophy or epistemology.
For a scientific article Krajbich's placing too much emphasis on luck in analyzing decision making.
Successful sportsman have always been comfortable with a small margin of advantage. Leagues and ladder tables put teams of similar ability together in match-ups, large differences are uncommon and seen as unsporting if too frequent.
People build their own structures for dealing with work and life, there's no structure you can bring to a point & click symbol matching game that would help inside the rules of the test. You could escape the test environment and reverse engineer the code in real life, or accelerate the test environment with a clicking bot and data-log the patterns. You could bring knowledge and grokked intuition from another field into a complex task for an advantage, but none of that here. Exploring alternative hypothesis in real life is useful because there is infinite (though diminishing returns) in adding to a better work skill or structure.
I don't know what value people are expected to get out of this article.
In the type of experiment they were running, an almost gambling type situation with small amounts of money at stake and some element of random chance, I know that I personally wouldn't always follow the "correct" strategy just because if there isn't enough at stake it might be more fun to go for the "worse" option. Although if there were real high stakes then I don't know how I would behave. I think @hpoe's hypothesis that it has to do with signaling the environment has changed makes a lot of sense. It's hard to know what you would do in an experiment without being in it of course since you can rationalize anything, but I do know that in prior psych/econ studies I've been a subject in I've found it sometimes fun to deliberately gamble the riskier option when it's only a few pennies out of ten bucks for the session at stake.
I feel trapped by this because I cannot count on others to make the best decision..or right decision ethically and for decency...seems they choose to make the best for THEM at my expense. My life was ruined by medical errors. I was told to "trust the professionals" and when I did they damaged me and took from me, then the systems and people meant to help when that happens refused. Family bailed. Years and years of this culminated in a suicide attempt recently that failed due to intervention, and those same professionals and family ignored my documented wishes to be let go and "saved" me into a worse situation with even more needs and less to no help. They don't care about me at all...just the best decision for THEIR feelings.
I'd love to live...have wanted to the entire time...but people can only take so much. I had one great chance a couple years ago, only one in all this time, and more health issues and my fear of suffering more caused me to lose that. There isn't enough help...people just take more and ignore and throw platitudes. What all of this life has taught me is 99% of people are in it entirely for themselves and how I lived and what I believed in was naive and stupid. So the best decision for me now is to get out of this shit world but I am not even allowed to do that. Just more nonsense and symptom covering...never root cause solutions. There is no lifeline...no support...just rationalization and calculus devaluing my life. "Best decisions".
This forum probably isn't the best place to ask for help, but I'll try:
Suicide isn't the answer. As long as you're breathing there's hope.
And yeah, 99% of everything is crap, including, unfortunately, most people. But the stuff and people that aren't crap are worth the slog, even if it doesn't seem like it now.
Also, you're going to die anyway, it's the one thing the Universe gives you for free, the moment you're born. In the meantime, you've got an entire human life to use: you can think, talk, move around a little (I'm guessing), eh? Sure, it's painful and dirty and there's always some kind of snot or ooze involved in everything, goddamnit, but it's still a crazy cool thing to be. hang in there! You're worth it!
I am not asking for help. There is no "right place to ask for help". It's been made clear over 15 years that won't happen. Not the help I need. I am venting when a relevant topic comes up.
"Suicide isn't the answer" is the sort of platitude I mean. It is an answer. It solves the problems I am suffering. I am so tired of people who haven't slogged anywhere near as painfully and as long as I have telling me what is worth it or what I HAVE to do. People who don't understand at all what it's like or try and relate their relatively smaller issues or survivable resources and health to "knowing suffering". Everything you have said is to reinforce your own beliefs and comforts. It doesn't help me at all. Lest I sound ungrateful...I appreciate people trying...but it doesn't work or help and people and systems won't do what is required. My country has decided social systems are bad and wrong and denied me that assistance and Maslow's basic needs. I know I am worth it. I didn't cause any of this. I am a victim and that's a dirty word. Being angry about it is "wrong". Nobody arrives where I am because they have choices. It's a last desperate jump so the fire doesn't burn you up...even though you know you will fall and splat...to paraphrase DFW.
I'm happy to take the help to live...it's not there. It's "entitled" of me. It's me not "trying hard enough" whilst I am burning up. Everyone for themselves with the exception of a tiny few...and I've not had enough of those people in my life since this happened to me.
I can't say I understand your condition or your suffering. I can only say that I empathize (I know you can't buy anything for it). I think you writing and talking about it is the right approach. Maybe you can do it some more (via a blog or facebook or whatever) - you will probably get a lot of feedback that you don't like. But hey, feedback means that at least there is some interest in your life from other people. That means something, even if it doesn't change your circumstances. However, maybe someone can give you some pointers (e.g. certain organizations that help) that can be the start of something better. Anyway, talking (or communicating) is better than suffering in silence. That way you can let your emotions out :)
Unfortunately changing my circumstances is the only thing that matters and could save me. Just being heard and my feelings validated isn't enough. But for some human emotional reason I am screaming out all the way to the impact.
People are scared. It looks a lot like selfishness, but it’s not. Lots of people in this forum read your words and want to help but they’re scared. What if they make it worse? The more they care, the more scared they are, the more selfish they look. I guarantee that there are people out there that feel just as bad as you, and you can make them feel better too, if you’re not too scared to help.
I guess I just feel hopeless because I cannot manage things on my own anymore, like I used to when life was good, and I cannot find enough help to survive. I have been failed over and over by systems and people and saying that is used as something being wrong with ME. Admittedly a couple of very rare times I have failed to grab on to a helping hand out of fear and situations making things worse, and I don't know if those things would have worked or not, and those rare instances seem to paint me in an even worse light as someone who is beyond help and NEVER acts or does the right thing even though that isn't true, but mostly there isn't any help. That's why I ended up where I am. People seem to think they would always be capable of finding a way out...I thought so too...the reality is different. I wish I had succeeded in leaving this world because I see no way to survive in it that is accessible to me. I'd be getting social assistance in most first world countries. I am angry, alone, in pain, exhausted, and hopeless...and that annoys and offends and I understand why but it still hurts. Just have no idea what to do...feel adrift and hopeless in a way I never imagined possible.
It seems to me that your suffering, and maybe all suffering, is quite existential rather than confined to a specific problem that could be solved. You may find that you're in the first stages of an enlightenment, where you realize that nothing can fill the void inside you, and that seems bad. And then maybe you'll see that nothing can bring you happiness, and that's worse. But also nothing can bring you pain, and that's a little better. And so the world around you is not in control, so that's okay, but not quite worth it. But maybe something bigger than the world is in control, and that's scary and hard to believe. But then there must be a reason for you to be here, and that is enough, and all that you'll ever need.
I wouldn't know. I haven't been as far as you on the path.
I am quite sure SOME people are scared, but I wish they'd try anyway...at least have the discussion of options. In my experience in life most people just don't care, are in it to win it, and others are just pieces on the board.
Yes there are many people as bad or sadly even worse off than me. That doesn't lift or make me feel any better...it makes me feel bad for them and hate the system even more. I also don't have the energy or health to be much of a supporter when I need to be supported. Drowning guy isn't the person to advocate for water safety...he is trying not to go totally under. I do give what I can of myself to a couple close people and it's already too much for me. I am not scared to help...I don't have any resources to help and am sinking myself.
A college roommate was an impulsive guy, and always got himself into jams because of his impulsivity. He wasn't dumb and was fully aware he was making a bad choice before/during/after each act.
He explained it this way. He'd get a desire to do or say something and it would grab his attention and gnaw at him and distract him until it was released. He'd rather do the dumb thing and deal with the consequences than live with that gnawing feeling.
> Krajbich said the results of this study suggest that many times we will take the route that worked yesterday and ignore the evidence of what normally works best.
I think that this is an example of "Denominator Neglect" I read about in the book "The Organized Mind", by Levetin. There is a section about organized decision making for complicated decisions. Medical decisions is in this group. At the same time, for most uncomplicated decisions, his advice is just to be more decisive.
Still, here are the basic steps that he outlined, I believe (from memory...):
1) Arm yourself with the best possible statistics about your procedure (things like NNT are good to know).
2) Understand your own biases.
3) Understand your own tolerance for regret. If a low chance of failure (5% or so) happens, can you ignore outcome bias?
4) If you still can't make up your mind, talk to your friends and family about your core values.
He also talks about how to converse with your doctor, understanding the incredible quality of knowledge that they have, while understanding some of the gaps that they might have.
I really despise when ‘researchers’ make such belittling claims about ‘people’ (not them of course). The first assumption when observing something, anything, should be that there is a good reason for it. Assuming that other people are stupid is the similar but opposite fallacy as assuming that a stage performer has magic powers.
As in other posts here, it’s not hard to find good explanations for this observation.
Yes, there are always hidden cognitive costs. Many claims of "irrational" behavior by economists or psychologists don't account for them. Or their model failed to consider the whole picture or long term concerns.
"When faced with a decision, people may know which choice gives them the best chance of success, but still take the other option."
THIS CAN BE RATIONAL.
"Best chance of success" ignores weightings.
Say Spruce St. is slower than Main St. by 2 mins on a normal day. And Main St. had a 90-min delay yesterday. If there is even a 3% chance that Main St. has a similar delay today, it is smarter to take Spruce St.; even though Main St. has the best "chance" of success (97% of the time you will get home faster with Main St.).
Maybe the actual study does not make this mistake, but the wording of the article certainly does.
Exactly. Another thing (also illustrated by your example) is that consequences can be really nonlinear with respect to your scoring function, whatever that is. Take investing, for example - the "rational" thing to do is to mortgage everything, leverage yourself to the hilt and buy as many hot button shares as possible. This totally ignores the fact that, while you'll eventually come out on top, going bankrupt will end your game with a massive loss. Or in your case, maybe +/- 5 minutes is pretty linear but if you're 45 minutes late then you'll get fired. You'd never risk it to save 2 minutes.
You know how cells with cancer or defects commit suicide in the human body? Maybe this is a macro level aspect of the same phenomenon. Humans take the most risky high reward choice to self select the best candidate for reproduction.
Only it's not natural selection, more like preprogrammed cell death happening at the macro level. Similar to ants sacrificing themselves for the queen.
Anecdotally, I can say Ive made a less than ideal decision and been very cognizant of it at the time. As Neil44 says in the comments we are feeling beings that think. I dont think Im unique when I, to use a trival example, weigh the cost of staying up later and watching another episode on netflix vs getting the sleep I need. Instant dopamine vs long term consequences...
It's common knowledge that people don't want to strain their mental ability when making decisions. So, it makes sense that people will go the easier route when making choices. Mental fatigue when making decisions is a real deal breaker. It is my belief that it gets worst if you don't pay attention to how you are making decisions.
When the probabilities change people need some time to estimate the new probabilities, an in real life the transition usually is linear, so perhaps they detect that the previous winning strategy is becomming worse, that is they try to predict the future using a linear model not expecting an instanct change in probabilities.
This is a super exploitable human behavior when playing with novices at poker. Even smart folks can just become a bit to curious about seeing more cards even though they know it's not rational. Making the best decision requires discipline and maybe going against "instinct" and "gut feeling"
Another study that only works in 'study-space'. That is, when people know they are in a study, they try to second-guess the study organizer. They value guessing what the investigator is trying to do, over any trivial monetary reward provided by the exercise.
I noticed none of the tests, suggested or used, involved making decisions that affected others. There can be many times when others involved that you cannot take the best decision but instead must take the most acceptable. These are not necessarily the same thing
At a more basic level, and on point with the title rather than the article, the best decision is should make is stop smoking yet i keep smoking. Wondering what other decisions i make are similar to this one.
The multi-armed bandit problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit) is a theoretical simplification of this concept.