It may not be incoherent to be risk averse, but there are instances in which it is not expected utility maximizing. If you have a 51% chance of world doubling, the expected utility is greater if you take the bet. That’s true, no matter how many times it was previously offered. I don’t quite understand why the CLT is relevant.
Yes, the expected utility is larger.
The claim is that there is nothing incoherent about not maximising expected utility in this case.
To try rephrasing:
Principle 1: if you have to choose a X% chance of getting some outcome A, and a >=X% chance of a strictly better outcome B, you should take B.
Principle 2: if you will be facing a long series of comparably significant choices, you should decide each of them based on expected utility maximisation.
Principle 3: you should do expected utility maximisation for every single choice. Even if that is the last/most important choice you will ever make.
The claim is that: P1 is solid. P2 follows from P1 (via Central Limit Theorem, or whatever math). But P3 does not follow from P1/P2, and there will be cases where it might be justified to not obey P3. (Like the case with 51% chance of doubling the world’s goodness, 49% chance of destroying it.)
Note that I am not claiming it’s wrong to do expected utility maximisation in all scenarios. Just saying that it both doing and not doing it is OK. And therefore it is (very?) non-strategic to associate your philosophical movement with it. (Given that most people’s intuitions seem to be against it.)
Does this explanation make sense? Maybe I should change the title to something with expected utility?
It may not be incoherent to be risk averse, but there are instances in which it is not expected utility maximizing. If you have a 51% chance of world doubling, the expected utility is greater if you take the bet. That’s true, no matter how many times it was previously offered. I don’t quite understand why the CLT is relevant.
Yes, the expected utility is larger. The claim is that there is nothing incoherent about not maximising expected utility in this case.
To try rephrasing: Principle 1: if you have to choose a X% chance of getting some outcome A, and a >=X% chance of a strictly better outcome B, you should take B. Principle 2: if you will be facing a long series of comparably significant choices, you should decide each of them based on expected utility maximisation. Principle 3: you should do expected utility maximisation for every single choice. Even if that is the last/most important choice you will ever make.
The claim is that: P1 is solid. P2 follows from P1 (via Central Limit Theorem, or whatever math). But P3 does not follow from P1/P2, and there will be cases where it might be justified to not obey P3. (Like the case with 51% chance of doubling the world’s goodness, 49% chance of destroying it.)
Note that I am not claiming it’s wrong to do expected utility maximisation in all scenarios. Just saying that it both doing and not doing it is OK. And therefore it is (very?) non-strategic to associate your philosophical movement with it. (Given that most people’s intuitions seem to be against it.)
Does this explanation make sense? Maybe I should change the title to something with expected utility?