The Gemini summary is inaccurate. Instead, the key idea is to ask people to rate each experience on an unconstrained scale, with a reference point that is the same for everyone. For instance, one could ask people to place their palm on a desk, then put a jug filled with three gallons of water on top of it, and then ask, “If the intensity of the pain you are feeling now is 20, then what number best represents the intensity of the suffering you felt when X happened?” for different events X.
Instead, the key idea is to ask people to rate each experience on an unconstrained scale, with a reference point that is the same for everyone.
This is what I understood from Gemini’s summary.
one could ask people to place their palm on a desk, then put a jug filled with three gallons of water on top of it, and then ask, “If the intensity of the pain you are feeling now is 20 [in the reference scenario], then what number best represents the intensity of the suffering you felt when X happened?” for different events X
The method also works, although less accurately, if people just read about the reference scenario (in the same way that they just read about X in your example)? If so, one could ask people to compare the intensity of different pain categories via time trade-offs? For example, if a person is indifferent between 10 h of annoying pain, and 1 h of hurtful pain, annoying pain would be 10 % (= 1⁄10) as intense for them as hurtful pain.
The method also works, although less accurately, if people just read about the reference scenario (in the same way that they just read about X in your example)? If so, one could ask people to compare the intensity of different pain categories via time trade-offs? For example, if a person is indifferent between 10 h of annoying pain, and 1 h of hurtful pain, annoying pain would be 10 % (= 1⁄10) as intense for them as hurtful pain.
The method would probably work less well with an imagined reference scenario unless people have experienced something similar. I also agree that one could pair this method with the time-tradeoff method. It might work better because people are better at making decisions than at making numerical judgments. On the other hand, the subjective decision utility of pain is probably not linear in its duration. By that, I don’t mean to claim that the amount of suffering doesn’t linearly increase with the duration of pain. Instead, I am claiming that people’s decision-making values the duration of pain in ways that may be irrational.
The Gemini summary is inaccurate. Instead, the key idea is to ask people to rate each experience on an unconstrained scale, with a reference point that is the same for everyone. For instance, one could ask people to place their palm on a desk, then put a jug filled with three gallons of water on top of it, and then ask, “If the intensity of the pain you are feeling now is 20, then what number best represents the intensity of the suffering you felt when X happened?” for different events X.
This is what I understood from Gemini’s summary.
The method also works, although less accurately, if people just read about the reference scenario (in the same way that they just read about X in your example)? If so, one could ask people to compare the intensity of different pain categories via time trade-offs? For example, if a person is indifferent between 10 h of annoying pain, and 1 h of hurtful pain, annoying pain would be 10 % (= 1⁄10) as intense for them as hurtful pain.
The method would probably work less well with an imagined reference scenario unless people have experienced something similar. I also agree that one could pair this method with the time-tradeoff method. It might work better because people are better at making decisions than at making numerical judgments. On the other hand, the subjective decision utility of pain is probably not linear in its duration. By that, I don’t mean to claim that the amount of suffering doesn’t linearly increase with the duration of pain. Instead, I am claiming that people’s decision-making values the duration of pain in ways that may be irrational.
I agree. In addition, I think judgements about more recent experiences would be more reliable.
Makes sense. The peak-end rule suggests people may prefer experiences which are overall more painful if they end with pain of lower intensity.