Test method for the hypothesis: Use two samples of people: People who have reason to trust their mathematical ability more (say undergraduate math majors) and people who don’t (the general undergrad population). If your hypothesis is correct then the math majors should display less of an irrationality in this context. That’s hard to distinguish between them being just more rational in general, so this should be controlled in some way using other tests of rationality levels that aren’t as mathematical (such as say vulnerability to the conjunction fallacy in story form)
This seems worth testing. I hypothesize that if one does so and controls for any increase in general rationality one won’t get a difference between the math majors and the general undergraduates. Moreover, I suspect but am much less certain chance that even without controlling for any general increase in rationality, the math majors will show about as much of an Allais effect as the other undergrads.
One way of testing:
Have two questions just like in Allais experiment. Make the experiment in five different versions where choice 1B has increasing complexity but same expected utility. See if 1B-aversion correlates with increasing complexity.
I don’t want to generalize from one example, but I’m sharing my personal experience in the hopes that somebody else will follow me and we can collect at least some small evidence.
I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics (meaning I’m at ease with simple math), but when I first encoutered the Allais paradox my first gut answer was 1A & 2B, even though I could immediately identify that something was wrong with this choice. I mean: I knew that my anwer was inconsistent, but I still had to make a conscious effort to persuade myself. To be honest, it’s still like this every time I read about the paradox again: I know what the rational answer is, but the irrational one still makes me feel more confortable.
Concluding, in my case there’s definitley something beyond computational complexity at work.
Test method for the hypothesis: Use two samples of people: People who have reason to trust their mathematical ability more (say undergraduate math majors) and people who don’t (the general undergrad population). If your hypothesis is correct then the math majors should display less of an irrationality in this context. That’s hard to distinguish between them being just more rational in general, so this should be controlled in some way using other tests of rationality levels that aren’t as mathematical (such as say vulnerability to the conjunction fallacy in story form)
This seems worth testing. I hypothesize that if one does so and controls for any increase in general rationality one won’t get a difference between the math majors and the general undergraduates. Moreover, I suspect but am much less certain chance that even without controlling for any general increase in rationality, the math majors will show about as much of an Allais effect as the other undergrads.
One way of testing: Have two questions just like in Allais experiment. Make the experiment in five different versions where choice 1B has increasing complexity but same expected utility. See if 1B-aversion correlates with increasing complexity.
Ooh. I like that. That’s a much more direct test than my suggestion.
I don’t want to generalize from one example, but I’m sharing my personal experience in the hopes that somebody else will follow me and we can collect at least some small evidence. I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics (meaning I’m at ease with simple math), but when I first encoutered the Allais paradox my first gut answer was 1A & 2B, even though I could immediately identify that something was wrong with this choice. I mean: I knew that my anwer was inconsistent, but I still had to make a conscious effort to persuade myself. To be honest, it’s still like this every time I read about the paradox again: I know what the rational answer is, but the irrational one still makes me feel more confortable. Concluding, in my case there’s definitley something beyond computational complexity at work.