Vasco Grilo🔸 comments on 2. Why intuitive comparisons of large-scale impact are unjustified

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

How should we interpret “the UEV of strategy $s$ is $[a,b]$”? This does not mean “if I thought more, probably I’d consider the UEV to be some number in this interval, but I’m uncertain which one”, or “all values in this interval are equally plausible UEVs”. Instead, our evaluation of the strategy’s “expected” impact is irreducibly indeterminate. We simply don’t narrow it down further. That is, $s$ is:

• better than a strategy that guarantees value $a$, and

• worse than a strategy that guarantees value $b$, but

• incomparable with a strategy that guarantees value $c$, for any $c$ in $(a,b)$. It’s neither better, nor worse, nor exactly as good as that strategy.

Did you mean “better or equal” in the 1st bullet, and “worse or equal” in the 2nd bullet?

[Anthony DiGiovanni 🔸]

yep, thanks!