That's not what I meant. I don't think that people really operate on
the basis of probabilistic calculations, but rather on short-range
attractors. What I see them being motivated by is the "dream of
riches", which feels closer when they take steps, even unlikely ones, to
achieve it.
I said that too strongly, as there are definitely other patterns of
behavior also acting. But my guess is that most habitual gamblers
AREN'T thinking about probabilities. They are feeling their dreams. I
may feel that they are acting in a very foolish way to realize their
dreams, but when you examine what's happening, most of those dreams are,
actually, impossible. So they are acting in a way that they allow
themselves to feel will bring their dreams closer, not having any actual
way to realize those dreams. (Note that I assert that "Winning the
Jackpot" would *not* realize their dreams. It would, in fact, puncture
them...but so few will ever win that this hazard is not a problem.)
I definitely don't think that people do well at calculating odds. In
fact, I feel that they generally don't do so at all, but rather rely on
chains of habits associated with goal states. (Naturally this is a
gross oversimplification. Other mechanisms are also present.) But if
people were probabilistic calculators, schools would be run in a totally
different manner (to pick only one example). What people have are lots
and lots of state transition rules based around their experience, and
internal mental state is definitely a part of the experience. And, of
course, goal states that rise and fall in priority, small amounts of
logic, etc. One of the virtues of language is that it facilitates the
transmission of "state transition rules" in the form of stories.
These, of course, aren't as precise as arithmetic, which generally
requires LOTS of repetition to learn with sufficient precision. It's no
accident that logic doesn't start getting taught as such (algebra,
geometry, etc.) until after several years of arithmetic. And symbolic
logic even later. (Well, Lewis Carroll [Professor Charles Dodgson]
attempted to create a form of logic suitable for learning at an earlier
age, but it met with...minimal acceptance.)
Note that in NONE of these is probability mentioned. Stories often have
a contrafactual premise, e.g., "If you should have a goose that lays
golden eggs..." so that you won't try to apply them directly, with the
understood implication that these are rules to use in an analogous
situation. Well, possibly not consciously understood...but when you
here someone say "That's killing the goose that lays the golden eggs!"
you never thing that a real goose is under discussion.
All that said, there is SOME probabilistic calculation done by people
who are skilled in any particular situation. Most people that I'm aware
do it with some sort of internal calculation that appears to involve a
mental model of weights being lifted by both the left and right hands
and "hefted" (not quite juggled). Needless to say this doesn't come up
with a very precise answer, but it's generally "good enough" to use when
the other approaches fail. (And, yes, professional gambling games are
especially designed to render this kind of judgment useless.)
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I knew a lot of gamblers when I lived in Vegas.
Of course, motivations were mixed. Some people did gamble even though
they had an accurate idea of the odds, just for the fun of it.
However, this was a rare case. Nearly all gamblers had an
overoptimistic view of their odds (they knew the odds were against
them, but didn't want to face just how badly); and the casino
structures games specifically to induce this kind of overoptimism.
For instance, people will routinely choose
-- a $10M slot machine with odds x, instead of
-- a $5M slot machine with odds 3x
because $10M looks funkier to them ... and this even though in terms
of their actual life, winning $5M would usually do them about as much
good as winning $10M. Dangling huge numbers in front of people has a
kind of mind-boggling effect on them.... And there are many subtler
tricks up the casinos' sleeves, of course...
Your view of humans as accurate probabilistic reasoners is definitely
not borne out by the Heuristics and Biases literature in cognitive
psychology.
Ben
On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Charles D Hixson wrote:
gts wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:57:04 -0500, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The dramatic probabilistic incoherency of humans is demonstrated by
human behavior in casinos.
You mean something more stringent than me by the word incoherency,
then. Human betting behavior in casinos is stupid but it is not
incoherent in the De Finetti sense as I understand it.
It's easy to prove incoherence: one need only show how a dutch book
can be made against the allegedly incoherent person. Vulnerability
to dutch books is how incoherence is defined under the theory.
Casino gamblers are stupid in so much as they place bets with
unfavorable odds, but they do not by virtue of those stupid bets
make themselves vulnerable to dutch books. One sometimes wins
against unfavorable odds but it is never possible to beat a dutch
book. In fact casinos do not even offer such betting situations.
-gts
I suspect you of mis-analyzing the goals and rewards of casino
gamblers. I don't personally know any of those addicted to gambling,
but I know people who buy lottery tickets every week. They derive
pleasure not only from winning, but also from dreaming about
winning. Then there's the matter of "expected marginal value". I
may suspect that winning would have much less of a positive result
than they expect, but this hardly matters as almost nobody will
actually win. Therefore most of the benefit must be derivable
without winning.
Perhaps most gambling is not a zero-sum game. (Actually, I suspect
that winning the lottery may well be a negative result. I'm not
certain, but many reports indicate that such a person is more likely
to be bankrupt 5 years later than a person who did not win.
[Reliability of such reports? Unverified.])
I'm not sure whether or not this speaks to the points that you are
attempting to raise, but it certainly calls into question comments
about "stupid bets". Well, the lottery isn't a casino, so perhaps
you are correct, but I would be suspicious about calculating values
based solely on the money.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
