How does this make sense exactly? A happy person, with more resources, would be better off not taking risks that could result in him losing what he has. On the other hand, a sad person with few resources, would need to take more risks then the happy person to get the same results. If you told a rich person, jump off that cliff and I’ll give you a million dollars, they probably wouldn’t do it. On the other hand, if you told a poor person the same thing, they might do it as long as there was a chance they could survive.
My idea of why people were happy wasn’t a static value of how many resources they had, but a comparative value. A rich person thrown into poverty would be very unhappy, but the poor person might be happy.
How does this make sense exactly? A happy person, with more resources, would be better off not taking risks that could result in him losing what he has. On the other hand, a sad person with few resources, would need to take more risks then the happy person to get the same results.
Kaj’s hypothesis is a bit off: what he’s actually talking about is the explore/exploit tradeoff. An animal in a bad (but not-yet catastrophic) situation is better off exploiting available resources than scouting new ones, since in the EEA, any “bad” situation is likely to be temporary (winter, immediate presence of a predator, etc.) and it’s better to ride out the situation.
OTOH, when resources are widely available, exploring is more likely to be fruitful and worthwhile.
The connection to happiness and risk-taking is more tenuous.
If you told a rich person, jump off that cliff and I’ll give you a million dollars, they probably wouldn’t do it. On the other hand, if you told a poor person the same thing, they might do it as long as there was a chance they could survive.
I’d be interested in seeing the results of that experiment. But “rich” and “poor” are even more loosely correlated with the variables in question—there are unhappy “rich” people and unhappy “poor” people, after all.
(In other words, this is all about internal, intuitive perceptions of resource availability, not rational assessments of actual resource availability.)
If I were to wager a guess, the people who would accept the deal are those who feel they are in a catastrophic situation.
Speaking of catastrophic situations, have you seen The Wages of Fear or any of the remakes? I’ve only seen Sorcerer), but it was quite good. It’s a rather more realistic situation that jumping off a cliff, but the structure is the same: a group of desperate people driving cases of nitroglycerin-sweating dynamite across rough terrain to get enough money that they can escape.
It’s a rather more realistic situation that jumping off a cliff
Or maybe not...
Driving in teams of two, they meet various hazards on their journey, including a dilapidated rope-suspension bridge swinging violently in a huge storm over a flood-swollen river, a massive tree blocking the road, and a number of desperate, dangerous bandits.
I was kind of thinking expected value. In principle, if you always go by expected value, in the long run you will end up maximizing your value. But this may not be the best move to make if you’re low on resources, because with bad luck you’ll run out of them and die even though you made the moves with the highest expected value.
However, your objection does make sense and Eby’s reformulation of my theory is probably the superior one, now that I think about it.
How does this make sense exactly? A happy person, with more resources, would be better off not taking risks that could result in him losing what he has. On the other hand, a sad person with few resources, would need to take more risks then the happy person to get the same results. If you told a rich person, jump off that cliff and I’ll give you a million dollars, they probably wouldn’t do it. On the other hand, if you told a poor person the same thing, they might do it as long as there was a chance they could survive.
My idea of why people were happy wasn’t a static value of how many resources they had, but a comparative value. A rich person thrown into poverty would be very unhappy, but the poor person might be happy.
Kaj’s hypothesis is a bit off: what he’s actually talking about is the explore/exploit tradeoff. An animal in a bad (but not-yet catastrophic) situation is better off exploiting available resources than scouting new ones, since in the EEA, any “bad” situation is likely to be temporary (winter, immediate presence of a predator, etc.) and it’s better to ride out the situation.
OTOH, when resources are widely available, exploring is more likely to be fruitful and worthwhile.
The connection to happiness and risk-taking is more tenuous.
I’d be interested in seeing the results of that experiment. But “rich” and “poor” are even more loosely correlated with the variables in question—there are unhappy “rich” people and unhappy “poor” people, after all.
(In other words, this is all about internal, intuitive perceptions of resource availability, not rational assessments of actual resource availability.)
If I were to wager a guess, the people who would accept the deal are those who feel they are in a catastrophic situation.
Speaking of catastrophic situations, have you seen The Wages of Fear or any of the remakes? I’ve only seen Sorcerer), but it was quite good. It’s a rather more realistic situation that jumping off a cliff, but the structure is the same: a group of desperate people driving cases of nitroglycerin-sweating dynamite across rough terrain to get enough money that they can escape.
Or maybe not...
I’d buy “main road incorporating rope suspension bridges” over “millionaire hiring people to throw themselves off cliffs”, but I see what you mean.
I believe you’re right, now that I think about that.
I was kind of thinking expected value. In principle, if you always go by expected value, in the long run you will end up maximizing your value. But this may not be the best move to make if you’re low on resources, because with bad luck you’ll run out of them and die even though you made the moves with the highest expected value.
However, your objection does make sense and Eby’s reformulation of my theory is probably the superior one, now that I think about it.