The article is pay-walled, so all I could read was the abstract. It was published in an economics journal, not psychology journal, and it was done ". . . in a developing country context", so I don't know what it was, or how they measured risk aversion.
But, what does "less risk aversion" mean here? Does the headline or abstract mean that chess training made kids "less risk averse" in the sense of more confident and assured, perhaps more emboldened? Or does it go too far, making them more brazen or impuls
In an economic sense, risk-aversion (and risk-loving, and risk-neutral) are terms of art. They categorize, literally how people compare playing a game of chance vs. the sure thing of the expected value of the game.
Consider when you offer someone a coin flip that pays $1 on heads and $0 on tails. A risk-loving individual would pay more than $0.50 for that chance, a risk-adverse individual would only be willing to pay less than $0.50 for that change and a risk-neutral individual is ambivalent at $0.50 takin
Your coin flip calculus is actually terrible, because it misses the fact that all people, even the most risk loving ones react to loss much harder than to a win.
This is because once you "fall to zero" after a coin flip, you lose not just the game of coin flip, but ability to participate in future games of coin flip, but no matter how much you win, all you get is a couple of extra coin flips. It's why gambling addicts who lose everything are as rare in overall population as they are. Almost all humans unders
You're partially correct, in the same way that if you said "the sky is blue; this is because leprechaun farts dye it blue as they ride rainbows" is partially correct. In economics it's recognized that people react more strongly to a loss than a win. Therefore, a 100% conformant explanation would have been someone offering a sure amount of money vs. a coin flip. That's how I could have phrased it. However, the effect typically is negligible at the $1 level, and including it would be akin to accounting fo
>Economics does not recognize your "knocked out of the game" vs "extra flips" reasoning as valid.
One of the main ways of looking into mechanics of poverty from view of economics is the exact analysis I conduct. "Poor people are risk averse because they have a risk of going to zero, where they can no longer afford (literally, not figuratively) to take new risk if this risk taking endeavour fails.
The thing you're missing is the common problem with many "deep, narrow" specialists in specific parts of econom
What you're saying is totally true - poorer people are more risk-adverse. But you're trying to correct my post about the definition of "risk-adverse" by explaining not risking a dollar doesn't make someone risk adverse because they have a good reason to be risk adverse. It's nonsense. The term is descriptive not judgemental.
While it's true that poor people might be risk-adverse for the reason I listed, that's a special case.
It's not. It's simply a core descriptor to all "games" played in real life, be they work, purchase decisions or social interactions. The ultimate goal is to win "the maximum amount of games possible" which in turn requires "being able to play in as many reasonably winnable games possible".
And once you can no longer bring enough value to be invited to the game, be it investment, date or task at work, you will no longer be invited to play. This is the core aspect of the entire concept when applied to real lif
You completely miss the point. I'm responding to someone confused about words that describe your behavior within a game. You're trying to explain why that behavior is being performed. It's like if someone asked what red, green and blue were, I showed them colored fonts, and you came in bitching about exciting the associated color cones, emissive vs. absobative color space and wouldn't shut up about it.
What does that really mean? (Score:2)
The article is pay-walled, so all I could read was the abstract. It was published in an economics journal, not psychology journal, and it was done ". . . in a developing country context", so I don't know what it was, or how they measured risk aversion.
But, what does "less risk aversion" mean here? Does the headline or abstract mean that chess training made kids "less risk averse" in the sense of more confident and assured, perhaps more emboldened? Or does it go too far, making them more brazen or impuls
Re: (Score:2)
In an economic sense, risk-aversion (and risk-loving, and risk-neutral) are terms of art. They categorize, literally how people compare playing a game of chance vs. the sure thing of the expected value of the game.
Consider when you offer someone a coin flip that pays $1 on heads and $0 on tails. A risk-loving individual would pay more than $0.50 for that chance, a risk-adverse individual would only be willing to pay less than $0.50 for that change and a risk-neutral individual is ambivalent at $0.50 takin
Re: (Score:3)
Your coin flip calculus is actually terrible, because it misses the fact that all people, even the most risk loving ones react to loss much harder than to a win.
This is because once you "fall to zero" after a coin flip, you lose not just the game of coin flip, but ability to participate in future games of coin flip, but no matter how much you win, all you get is a couple of extra coin flips. It's why gambling addicts who lose everything are as rare in overall population as they are. Almost all humans unders
Re: (Score:3)
You're partially correct, in the same way that if you said "the sky is blue; this is because leprechaun farts dye it blue as they ride rainbows" is partially correct. In economics it's recognized that people react more strongly to a loss than a win. Therefore, a 100% conformant explanation would have been someone offering a sure amount of money vs. a coin flip. That's how I could have phrased it. However, the effect typically is negligible at the $1 level, and including it would be akin to accounting fo
Re: (Score:2)
>Economics does not recognize your "knocked out of the game" vs "extra flips" reasoning as valid.
One of the main ways of looking into mechanics of poverty from view of economics is the exact analysis I conduct. "Poor people are risk averse because they have a risk of going to zero, where they can no longer afford (literally, not figuratively) to take new risk if this risk taking endeavour fails.
The thing you're missing is the common problem with many "deep, narrow" specialists in specific parts of econom
Re:What does that really mean? (Score:2)
What you're saying is totally true - poorer people are more risk-adverse. But you're trying to correct my post about the definition of "risk-adverse" by explaining not risking a dollar doesn't make someone risk adverse because they have a good reason to be risk adverse. It's nonsense. The term is descriptive not judgemental.
While it's true that poor people might be risk-adverse for the reason I listed, that's a special case.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. It's simply a core descriptor to all "games" played in real life, be they work, purchase decisions or social interactions. The ultimate goal is to win "the maximum amount of games possible" which in turn requires "being able to play in as many reasonably winnable games possible".
And once you can no longer bring enough value to be invited to the game, be it investment, date or task at work, you will no longer be invited to play. This is the core aspect of the entire concept when applied to real lif
Re: (Score:2)
You completely miss the point. I'm responding to someone confused about words that describe your behavior within a game. You're trying to explain why that behavior is being performed. It's like if someone asked what red, green and blue were, I showed them colored fonts, and you came in bitching about exciting the associated color cones, emissive vs. absobative color space and wouldn't shut up about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe that two can be cleanly separated in human psychology? If so, why?
Re: (Score:2)
Do I believe that describing someone's behavior and describing the underlying cause for it are two different conversations? Yes.
I have been describing how terms of art describe behavior. You are trying to explain why that behavior is rational. Two different discussions.
I cannot tell if you're honestly confused (continue to engage) or your just a dull troll.